A TRACT ON THE LAW OF NATURE, &c.

I HAVE neither leiſure nor abilities to undertake a regular definition of the Law of Nature, with all the doctrines uſually ranked under that head: and indeed, if I had both leiſure and abili⯑ties, I ſhould want inclination; becauſe ſuch a work would unavoidably become voluminous, on account of the variety of authors neceſſary to be mentioned, who have treated the ſubject with dif⯑ferent views: and as all ſcience is vain, which is not reduced to practice, ſo the more voluminous any ſubject is ren⯑dered, [2] the leſs it can be uſeful, on ac⯑count of the increaſed difficulty of com⯑municating it to the generality of read⯑ers. I have therefore confined my tract to ſuch general remarks on the ſubject, as are moſt neceſſary for the obſervation of my countrymen at large, with reſpect (more particularly) to one point, viz. the Illegality of reducing or ſubjecting man⯑kind to involuntary ſervitude, either under political or private dominion: as all pre⯑tenſions to an unlimited authority of any man or men over others, are con⯑trary to Natural Equity and the Laws of God, as well as baneful to mankind in general; which effect is unhappily de⯑monſtrated by the numberleſs inſtances of unnatural oppreſſion now prevailing to the deſtruction of mankind, in almoſt every part of the world. I have already ſhewn in my anſwer ⁽¹⁾ to the Reverend [3] Mr. Thompſon (an advocate for the African ſlave trade) that the Jewiſh con⯑ſtitutions were not ſtrictly conſiſtent with the Law of Nature in all points; and, conſequently, that they are not to be conſidered as the rule by which law⯑yers and caſuiſts may ſafely determine "what is, or what is not, according to Nature."

The Law of Nature has been variouſly repreſented; but all the beſt writers, both ancient and modern, agree in adopt⯑ing that maxim of the Civil Inſti⯑tutes ⁽²⁾, which declares involuntary ſer⯑vitude, [4] or ſlavery, to be "contrary to the Law of Nature:" this rule is commonly underſtood as applicable only to domeſtic ſlavery; but it is equally true when ap⯑plied to political oppreſſion, or the exer⯑ciſe of an unlimited dominion over a whole nation. Some few authors indeed have been ſo unreaſonable, as to aſſert that "there is no ſuch thing as natural Law;" but they are properly cenſured by the learned Baron Puffendorf, in his "Law of Nature and Nations." Book 2. Chap. 3.

[5]He particularly mentions the argu⯑ment of Carniades as contracted by Lac⯑tantius to the following effect.

"That men firſt inſtituted Laws to ſecure and promote their own advantage, &c. but that there was no ſuch thing as Natural Law in the world," &c. p. 104.

Such doctrine is certainly very con⯑venient for Tyrants and Slaveholders of every degree, who muſt otherwiſe re⯑main without excuſe, whenever "the Law of Nature," and "the Common Rights of Humanity," are urged againſt them: it is therefore neceſſary for them, either to miſrepreſent the Law of Nature (as the Reverend Mr. Thompſon has done), or elſe (like Carniades) utterly to deny its exiſtence. This latter method has been alſo adopted by ſome modern advocates for Slavery, who, in private diſcourſe on this ſubject, have declared, that they eſteem "the Law of Nature" [6] to be no other than their natural pro⯑penſity to purſue their own heart's deſire of profit or pleaſure: and this they call "natural Liberty;" though it certainly is the moſt unnatural Tyranny: for when the immutable neceſſity of reciprocal con⯑ſideration is forgot, or ſet aſide, there can be no ſafety among men, and con⯑ſequently no natural Liberty: we muſt, therefore, ſubmit ourſelves to be the ſer⯑vants of law, in order to be truly free; according to the excellent obſervation of Cicero. "Legum denique idcirco om⯑nes Servi ſumus, ut liberi eſſe poſſumus." Tom. 2. p. 208. ⁽³⁾. We may learn from the hiſtories of all nations, that Luſt, Ava⯑rice, Pride, Revenge, Love of Power, Jea⯑louſy, &c. are Principles of Action, which unavoidably produce oppreſſion and wrongs, to the deſtruction of the human ſpecies, in all places where will and pleaſure (whether in political or private domi⯑nion) [7] are ſupreme; or whenever Self-love and Private Intereſt become entirely predominant among men. That Self-love is predominant with the generality of mankind is but too apparent; yet we are not, therefore, obliged to admit that "Self-love" is "the univerſal principle of action;" though an eminent and learn⯑ed law-writer has (with very good in⯑tentions, as his argument proves) thought proper to give it that title.

"Honeſty (indeed) is the beſt policy," even for a ſelfiſh man to purſue; and, it is certain, that the ſolid attainments of virtue and juſtice afford a real and ſub⯑ſtantial ſatisfaction, which in the end, moſt amply fulfils the purpoſes of Self-love.

But though Virtue and Honeſty are thus favourable to Self-love in their natural effects, yet this, by no means, proves that [8] Self-love is the motive of all virtuous and honeſt men; or that it is the "univerſal principle of action:" for, if that were really the caſe, many of the moſt amiable virtues muſt be eſteemed mere empty names. There could be no true Gene⯑roſity or Benevolence; no Diſintereſted Goodneſs of heart; no ſincere Natural Affection between parents and their chil⯑dren, huſbands and their wives, brethren, friends, &c. whereas hiſtory affords many undoubted inſtances of Self-love being loſt in the ſuperior affections, natural to generous minds, in all theſe different de⯑grees of connection; but it is needleſs to recite them, ſince, even in the brute creation there are natural ⁽³⁾ affections ſuperior to Self-love.

[9]The common hen is ſo inflamed with Natural Affection, and anxious care for her tender brood, that ſhe ſeems to have as little ſenſe of Self-love in time of danger, as of her own weakneſs; for ſhe will boldly fly in the face of every invader (except man) however ſuperior in ſize or ſtrength to herſelf.

The timorous cow, it is ſaid, will attack the fierceſt tyger, when her calf is by her ſide. Many inſtances of very extraordinary Affection in dogs to their maſters have been well atteſted. Thoſe faithful animals have ſometimes been known to loſe all ſenſe of danger to themſelves in the neceſſary defence of their owners. And the very ſwine diſ⯑cover ſuch a Natural Affection and real ſympathy for their brethren of the ſty, [10] whenever they hear their cries of diſtreſs, that their example ought to ſhame the depraved part of mankind (imperial ty⯑rants and royal robbers, who extend their dominion by breach of faith, un⯑lawful invaſion, murder and rapine, as alſo thoſe petty tyrants and deſtroyers of mankind the African traders, and Ame⯑rican ſlaveholders) leſt the affectionate brute, notwithſtanding his ſenſuality, ſhould ſeem, on compariſon, a more ge⯑nerous, and therefore a more noble animal than that Man, who ſtifles all Natural Affection, Fellow-feeling, and Charity to his kind, merely for the ſake of acquiring power, or worldly profit to himſelf; and ſurely a time will come, when all ſuch offenders againſt the Law of Nature (who prefer the wages of unrighteouſ⯑neſs to the natural dictates of Humanity and Conſcience) will have reaſon to eſteem the lot of the moſt contemptible brute infinitely more eligible than their own!

[11]Now, as it appears that "Self-love" is not the "univerſal Principle of Action" even in brutes, much leſs ought it to be eſteemed ſo in mankind, becauſe the human ſoul (beſides the Natural Affection which men ought to have in common with other creatures) is endowed with a much more noble principle, or motive to good actions, I mean Reaſon, or that "Knowledge of good and evil," which we inherit from our firſt parents, and which they unlawfully took upon themſelves, at the inſtigation of their ſpiritual enemy, that they might thereby be rendered accountable for all their actions, and, through Knowledge ⁽⁴⁾, become guilty before God!

The hiſtory of that fatal tranſaction demands our moſt careful conſideration, ſince all mankind are particularly affected [12] by it! And ſurely the principles of our own Nature are ſubjects of enquiry infi⯑nitely more important to us, than all the other branches of natural Philoſophy; and yet perhaps they are leſs examined by men of ſcience, and conſequently are leſs underſtood, than any other! but in vain is the moſt accurate knowledge of plants, drugs, foſſils, and minerals; or of the exact revolutions of the heavenly bodies, and of the nature and properties of all the elements, &c. if the philoſo⯑pher is unacquainted with himſelf ⁽⁵⁾, and the properties and ſtate of his own ſoul, which is too often the caſe! Knowledge, in all the former particulars, is indeed honourable and praiſe-worthy, but, in the latter, it is indiſpenſable; for when men, through ignorance of the compouna Nature of man, ſlight the common means, [13] which God has revealed, to guard their minds againſt intellectual deceptions, they are ſure to be perverted in their princi⯑ples, to the imminent danger both of body and ſoul! Such an one, probably, thinks himſelf too judicious a critic to admit the Moſaic account of the ſubject now before us, viz. the Fall of Man; at leaſt in the literal ſenſe of the text: ſo that the doctrines, which I propoſe to collect from it, will have very little weight, I fear, with men of that ſtamp. Never⯑theleſs, as there are many doctrines in other parts of Scripture, which corro⯑borate the literal meaning of that rela⯑tion, and as there are alſo ſeveral cir⯑cumſtances diſcoverable in the Nature of Man, which cannot otherwiſe be rea⯑ſonably accounted for, I muſt beg my readers to excuſe me, even if they think me too prolix in my examination of that part of the ſacred hiſtory, which I con⯑ceive to be abſolutely neceſſary for the [14] obtaining a true practical idea of the Law of Nature, and the Principles of Action in Man.

God delivered a clear and expreſs Law to Man before the fall;—‘but of the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thou ſhalt not eat of it:’ and then fol⯑lows the denunciation of puniſhment;—‘for in the day that thou eateſt thereof, thou ſhalt ſurely DIE. Gen. ii. 17.’

This was the firſt and only penal Law; A FORFEITURE OF LIFE! And though we find afterwards, that the declared puniſhment was not immediately exe⯑cuted according to the letter (that is, the penalty of death was not inflicted on the day of the tranſgreſſion, as it ſeemed to be at firſt ordained) yet this affords no juſt exception againſt the truth and pro⯑priety of the relation.

[15]The ſame ALMIGHTY BEING, who had a right (as all things are his own) to prohibit the action above-mentioned, and to aſſign a puniſhment for diſobe⯑dience, had certainly a right alſo to re⯑ſpite, or poſtpone, or even to remit (if he had been pleaſed to do ſo) the exe⯑cution of the Law which he himſelf had ordained. But for the preſent it is ſufficient to remark, that the nature of the penalty had been clearly revealed to our firſt parents, and was as clearly un⯑derſtood by them, ſo that they were ſufficiently ſenſible of their obligation to obſerve the ſaid Law, previous to their breach of it: which plainly appears by the ſpeech of the woman to the tempter, viz. ‘But of the fruit of the tree in the midſt of the garden, GOD hath ſaid, ye ſhall not eat of it, neither ſhall ye touch it, leſt ye die.’

[16]After ſo clear an acknowledgment of the divine precept, the act of taking the fruit (which otherwiſe in itſelf would, probably, have been no crime) was cer⯑tainly a wilful ſin of a very heinous na⯑ture, being a groſs contempt of God's word, for which our firſt parents very juſtly incurred the penalty of death, which, they were previouſly told, muſt be the conſequence of diſobedience.

They had received this caution even from God himſelf, whom they knew to be their Maker and Supreme Lord; and yet the unwary woman unhappily liſtened to an aſſertion, that was abſolutely contra⯑dictory to her Creator's word, and there⯑by drew upon herſelf, and all her de⯑ſcendants, the irrevocable doom to la⯑bour!—pain!—and mortality!

Perhaps the haughty philoſopher will now be ready to arraign the juſtice of [17] the divine decree, which involved the innocent progeny (that is, innocent with reſpect to this particular crime) in the puniſhment of their guilty parents; but if he will patiently follow me through this examination of Human Na⯑ture, he will, perhaps, be able to form a better idea of the Nature of original Sin, and of the cauſe of its being in⯑tailed (or rather the effects of its being intailed) on all the deſcendants of Adam. For the immediate effect of that original Sin of our firſt parents, was the acqui⯑ſition of an additional faculty (even of a divine attribute) to the Nature of Man, which of courſe deſcends from theſe original ſtocks by natural inheritance to all their progeny, and thereby inevitably involves them all in the ſame condem⯑nation; the manner of which ſhall be more particularly explained hereafter. This very ancient example of puniſh⯑ment for a contempt of God's word (the [18] direful effects of which, labour, pain, and mortality, are ever before us) ſhould teach mankind the extreme danger of paying attention to any doctrines and interpretations of Law or Religion, that have the leaſt tendency to oppoſe or con⯑tradict the literal or moſt obvious mean⯑ing of God's word; for the efforts of our ſpiritual Enemy are never more bane⯑ful, than when he is pleaſed to aſſume the office of a commentator on the Laws of God; in which character he is fre⯑quently diſcoverable; for though he does not now preſent himſelf outwardly or ap⯑parently, as at firſt, in the aſſumed ſhape of a ſerpent, yet the venom of his doctrines is too often ſufficiently diſtinguiſhable, both in the writings and diſcourſes of men! And it is remarkable, that his firſt attempt againſt mankind ſhould be in the capacity of a critick on the Divine Law! The influence of ſpiritual enemies is indeed a diſtinct Principle of Action in [19] Man, which ſhall be more particularly mentioned in the courſe of this Tract.

But to return to the firſt fatal in⯑ſtance, before-mentioned, of Satan's ſuc⯑ceſs, in miſleading mankind, which oc⯑caſioned another diſtinct Principle of Action in Man.

It appears that the Tempter was well well acquainted with the true nature and effects of the forbidden fruit, which he declared, indeed, but not without utter⯑ing, at the ſame time, a notorious falſe⯑hood. ‘Ye ſhall not ſurely die (ſaid he) for God doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof’ (viz. of the fruit taken from the tree of knowledge) ‘then your eyes ſhall be opened: and ye ſhall be as gods, knowing Good and Evil. Gen. iii. 4, 5.’

[20]Now this acquiſition of Knowledge, which the Tempter promiſed, was really ſuch as he repreſented it, viz. a Divine Attribute ("Ye ſhall become as gods, knowing Good and Evil;" ſo that, in this one reſpect, indeed, his intelligence was true: for the inſpired hiſtorian has re⯑corded alſo the words of God himſelf to the ſame effect:—‘And the Lord God ſaid, Behold, the man is become AS ONE OF US, to know Good and Evil. (Chap. iii. 22.)’ But truth is much more deceitful and dangerous, even than falſehood itſelf, when, for the purpoſe of miſleading, it is maliciouſly blended with the latter; for notwithſtanding the Deceiver's flattering aſſurance to our firſt parents, that they ſhould "not die;" yet in the very day (as it ſeems) of their tranſgreſſion, they heard the tremendous ſentence of miſery and death pronounced againſt them! and though it was not then finally executed, as they had reaſon [21] to expect it would, according to the tenor of the Law before declared, on which the judgment was founded, (for God never judges men without Law, like the arbitrary princes of this world) yet the ſaid Law, by which their lives were expreſsly forfeited, was ſufficiently ful⯑filled by the condemnation of the tranſ⯑greſſors (on the very day of their offence) to mortality; whereby their once immor⯑tal bodies were rendered continually liable to diſeaſes, injuries, miſery, and death, as the bodies of all their deſcen⯑dants have ever ſince been! and they were no longer entitled even to the food neceſſary for the ſupport of their poor mortal bodies, without ſevere labour, care, and aſſiduity! —‘Curſed is the ground for thy ſake; in ſorrow ⁽⁶⁾ [22] ſhalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns alſo and thiſtles ſhall it bring forth to thee: and thou ſhalt eat the herb of the field.—In the ſweat of thy face’ (ſaid God to his guilty creature man) ‘ſhalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground: for out of it waſt thou taken: for duſt thou art, and unto duſt thou ſhalt return. (Gen. iii. 17, to 19.)’

Theſe have ever ſince been the condi⯑tions of human life; and though ſome men, who have ſtore of worldly goods, endeavour to caſt away care, and ſeem to [23] live in a ſtate of oppoſition to this gene⯑ral rule, yet they only deceive them⯑ſelves; for no deſcendant of Adam, be he ever ſo rich, has any right to eat the bread of idleneſs; nor can he do ſo with⯑out offence againſt his own ſoul, as well as againſt this univerſal ordinance of God.—If Providence has afforded him wealth and leiſure, he is accountable for both; being only a ſteward for life; after which, the performance of his duty to God, to his country, to his neighbours, nay, to mankind in general, his brethren of the univerſe, will be ſtrictly ſcruti⯑nized, and puniſhed in proportion to the degree of his wilful neglect and diſobe⯑dience; ſince nothing is more clearly revealed, than that all mankind lie under an indiſpenſable obligation to improve their talents for all theſe duties, as well as to uſe them whenever there is an op⯑portunity; ſo that the man who neg⯑lects to employ, in theſe ſervices, a due [24] portion of that leiſure, which his rank, or ſituation in life affords him, may juſtly be ſaid to miſpend his Maſter's time, for it is not his own: and ſuch an one muſt inevitably ſuffer with the "unprofitable ſervant," deſcribed in the Goſpel, who neglected to improve his talent;—‘Caſt ye the unprofitable ſer⯑vant into outer darkneſs!—There ſhall be weeping and gnaſhing of teeth. Matt. xxv. 30.’ See the whole parable from the 14th verſe, whereby it plainly appears, that mankind are laid under an indiſpenſable neceſſity to im⯑prove their reſpective natural talents, to the beſt of their power, for their Lord's ſervice.

The affluence, and unemployed leiſure, therefore, of many perſons, whom we daily ſee amongſt us, afford no juſt ex⯑ception to God's general ordinance con⯑cerning the hard conditions of human [25] life. It is almoſt too obvious to be mentioned, that riches and hereditary honours procure no exemption from the moſt material part of that ſentence, viz. "to duſt thou ſhalt return!" And that the time and manner of that returning to the duſt, or to the ground, is equally unknown to the rich and to the poor, though to both equally certain: ſo that no man, not the greateſt or moſt inde⯑pendent, can claim even a ſingle day before-hand as his own: ‘I will ſay to my ſoul’ (ſaith the rich man in the pa⯑rable) ‘Soul, thou haſt much goods laid up for many years: take thine eaſe, eat, drink and be merry. But God ſaid unto him, Thou fool, THIS NIGHT THY SOUL SHALL BE REQUIRED OF THEE; then whoſe ſhall thoſe things be which thou haſt provided? Luke xii. 19, 20.’ Wherefore, with reſpect alſo to the other part of the puniſhment for the original ſin (viz. the doom to labour) let thoſe [26] men, who think themſelves exempted, by their rank and fortunes, from the neceſſity of employment; who think they have a right to ſpend their time, as well as their money, juſt as they pleaſe, for their own amuſement and mere ſelf-ſa⯑tisfaction; and ſeem to enjoy leiſure and eaſe, as if God's general ordinance to all mankind had been partial, or of none effect! Let ſuch men, I ſay, be reminded of the alarming dreadful ſentence pro⯑nounced by "the Lord of the vineyard" in the parable. ‘Behold, theſe three years I come ſeeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none: cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground ⁽⁷⁾?’ How ab⯑ſurd therefore is the pride of thoſe men, who value themſelves on account of ter⯑ritorial authority (whether publick or private) and yet live as if the importance, which they aſſume in right of landed poſ⯑ſeſſions, or hereditary rank in life, might of [27] itſelf be eſteemed a ſufficient merit with⯑out the cultivation of any other! But let them remember, that there is a ‘Lord of the vineyard ⁽⁸⁾,’ to whom all things belong ⁽⁹⁾, and to whom a ſtrict account muſt be rendered of every truſt ⁽¹⁰⁾, and of every poſſeſſion, whether of lands, or of governments: ſo that the dominions and eſtates of all temporal lords and land⯑owners (be their right of tenure ever ſo unexceptionable among men) are yet ſo far from being their own, that even they themſelves, whenever they acquire a habit of miſpending their time and wealth, [28] are juſtly eſteemed as INCUMBRANCES upon that very ground, in which all their imaginary conſequence is planted! Now, ſhall we envy the rich man's enjoyment of unemployed leiſure, if this be the con⯑ſequence? Far better had it been for ſuch a perſon to have endured, with the meaneſt labourer, the common lot of man, and in the ſweat of his face to have eat his bread ⁽¹¹⁾, than thus to have lived an unworthy exception to the gene⯑ral decree, thereby rendering himſelf in the ſight of God, as one that ‘cumbereth the ground!’ It would be well for mankind, if the conſideration of this ſen⯑tence might be eſteemed alſo a general Principle of Action; but, alas! we are all too apt to miſpend our time in ſome degree; yet it is a failing to which the rich are more particularly liable. They are not compelled by neceſſity, like other men, to think for themſelves; and [29] from thence a fatal, inconſiderate notion is too apt to prevail among them, viz. that their time is their own; and there⯑fore, as they preſume upon a ſuppoſed right to ſpend their leiſure, according to their own Will and Pleaſure, they neceſ⯑ſarily miſpend their ſubſtance alſo, for which they are equally accountable; and as riches are alſo the ordinary means of procuring the ſweets and enjoyments of life, they are, conſequently, a continual ſource of temptation, as well to acquire them unjuſtly, as to expend them impro⯑perly. From hence, probably, ariſes the extreme danger of riches to the ſpiritual welfare of mankind! ‘Verily I ſay unto you (ſaid our Lord) that a rich man ſhall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I ſay unto you, it is eaſier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, then for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of GOD, Matth. xix. 23, 24.’ ‘Go [30] to now, ye rich men,—weep and howl for your miſeries that ſhall come upon you! James v. 1.’—‘Son, remem⯑ber that thou in thy life-time re⯑ceivedſt thy good things, and likewiſe Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. Luke xvi. 25.’ It is, nevertheleſs, through the additional faculty before-mentioned, which human nature acquired by the tranſgreſſion of our firſt parents (viz. the Knowledge of Good and Evil) that Sin is imputed to us, whether we be rich or poor.

Our ſpiritual Enemy envied the hap⯑pineſs of mankind in their original ſtate; and, therefore, artfully led them to the criminal uſurpation of forbidden Know⯑ledge, that they might, thereby, be ren⯑dered accountable to THE ETERNAL JUDGE for all their thoughts, words, and actions; and, through Knowledge, be⯑come [31] guilty before GOD, and continually ſubject to Sin and Death! For this divine Knowledge obliges us (howſoever we act) to approve, at leaſt, of virtuous actions, and to condemn vice; ſo that, when men tranſgreſs, it is, for the moſt part, knowingly, or wilfully: and as ‘the ſtrength of Sin is the Law ⁽¹²⁾,’ ſo the guilt of every criminal action is with juſtice imputed to us, becauſe we have wilfully offended againſt this natural Light, or LAW in our hearts, by which we ought to have known how ‘to re⯑fuſe the evil, and chuſe the good. Iſa. vii. 15.’

The Gentiles, without the knowledge of Scripture, nevertheleſs acknowledged this principle. "Law" (according to Cicero) ‘is a ſupreme Reaſon planted in [32] nature, which commands what ought to be done, and prohibits the contrary;" and he affirms, that "the ſame Reaſon, when it is eſtabliſhed and perfected in the mind of man, is Law.’

"Lex" (ſays he, in his firſt Book de Legibus) ‘eſt Ratio ſumma, inſita in Na⯑turâ, quae jubet ea quae facienda ſunt, prohibetque contraria. Eadem Ratio, cum eſt in hominis mente confirmata et confecta, Lex eſt. See Tom. 4. of his Works, p. 219.’ ⁽¹³⁾.

Here the enlightened Heathen writer plainly acknowledges the Principle as natural to Mankind (—‘Ratio ſumma, inſita in Naturâ’) and yet eſteemed it, at the ſame time, a divine Attribute, by ſome means imparted from GOD (—‘recta, et a numine Deorum tracta Ratio’) though he might probably be [33] unacquainted with the occaſion of its being engraffed in Human Nature. He mentions this Attribute again, in his ſecond Book de Natura Deorum, where he ſpeaks of Prudence, or the choice of Good, and rejection of Evil, ‘as a univer⯑ſal Law common to God and Man.’

‘Sequitur ut eadem ſit in his, quae in genere humano, ratio, eadem veritas utrobique ſit, eademque Lex; quae eſt recti praeceptio, pravique depulſio. Ex quo intelligitur, prudentiam quoque, et mentem á Diis ad homines perveniſſe, &c. (Tom. 4. p. 157.)’ And in his firſt Book de Officiis, he more particularly defines the Law of Nature in Man, by deſcribing the double bias of ſoul, viz. Appetite and Reaſon, and inſtead of laying down Ap⯑petite, or the Purſuit of Happineſs, as the Rule of Obedience (which ſome very emi⯑nent and learned lawyers have done) he wiſely reverſes that rule, and thence [34] forms an unexceptionable Rule of Action, viz. that Reaſon muſt rule, but Appetite obey. See his own words: ‘Duplex eſt enim vis animorum, atque naturae: una pars in appetitu poſita eſt, quae eſt [...] Graecè, quae hominem huc, et illuc rapit: altera in ratione quae docet, et explanat, quid faciendum, fugiendumque ſit. Ita fit, ut Ratio praeſit, Appetitus vero obtemperet. Tom. 4. p. 248.’

He alſo clearly deſcribes this natural inſtinct, ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil,’ under the title of Common Senſe, "Communis Intelligentia," and lays it down as the Law, or Rule of Nature ("Naturae Norma") for diſtinguiſhing good Laws ⁽¹⁴⁾ from bad, right from wrong, and honourable from baſe, which [35] certainly is a much ſafer Principle to rely on than "Self-love."

‘Atqui nos Legem bonam à mala, nulla alia niſi Naturae Norma dividere poſſumus. Nec ſolùm jus et injuria à natura dijudicatur, ſed omnino omnia honeſta, ac turpia. Nam et COM⯑MUNIS INTELLIGENTIA nobis notas res efficit, eaſque in animis noſtris in⯑choavit, ut honeſta in virtute ponantur, in vitiis turpia. Haec autem in Opi⯑nione exiſtimare, non in Natura poſita, dementis eſt. De Legibus, Lib. 1. Tom. 4. p. 222.’ ⁽¹⁵⁾. And the Apoſtle Paul has alſo given a ſtrong teſtimony concerning the power and influence of this inſtinct, or firſt Principle planted in human Nature.

He informs us, that ſome men, who had not the written Law of God, were, [36] nevertheleſs, capable of doing by Nature (or Inſtinct) the things contained in the Law—‘For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by Nature the things contained in the Law, theſe, having not the Law, are a Law unto themſelves ⁽¹⁶⁾; which ſhew the work [37] of the Law written in their hearts, their conſcience alſo bearing witneſs’ (or the conſcience witneſſing with them) ‘and their thoughts the mean while’ (or between themſelves) ‘accuſing, or elſe excuſing one another; &c. Ro⯑mans ii. 14, 15.’

This neceſſarily implies a natural Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL, ſo that this divine faculty, or inſtinct in the Na⯑ture of Man, ſeems plainly to be the grand Principle, whereby men, who have ‘not the Law, are a Law unto them⯑ſelves. (Rom. ii. 14.)’ And this I ap⯑prehend to be, properly, ‘THE LAW OF NATURE’ in MAN, the Law written on our hearts, or the Conſcience, which bears witneſs with us, as the Apoſtle declares [38] in the following verſe:—Our ‘thoughts the mean while accuſing, or elſe ex⯑cuſing us;’—for there are few men ſo bad, as not to have been, at ſome time or other, ſenſible of remorſe, through the accuſation above-mentioned of their their thoughts, or Conſcience. For what are theſe thoughts which accuſe and excuſe, but Conſcience itſelf; that is, the very ſame Principle, only differently expreſſed by the Apoſtle, for the ſake of explana⯑tion? And again, this Conſcience, which bears witneſs, is not a different, or diſtinct Principle from ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil,’ but only another name or mode of expreſſing the ſame Principle; or if it be ſo defined by ſome writers, as to appear in any degree different or diſtinct from the latter, it cannot, at moſt, be otherwiſe eſteemed than as a different effect of that ſame Divine Knowledge: and the like may be ſaid of Sindereſis ( [...]) as well as of ‘the Law of [39] Reaſon;’ both of which ſome authors have treated as diſtinct Principles from Conſcience, notwithſtanding that all theſe ſeparate heads, Sindereſis, Reaſon, and Conſcience, are neceſſarily reſolved into one ſingle principle or foundation, viz. "the Knowledge of Good and Evil," to which the enquirer is naturally led, in attempting to define them; for indeed this ſame identical Principle or Power is equally attributed to them all. ‘Sin⯑dereſis’ (ſays the author of Doct. et Student) ‘is a natural Power of the ſoul, ſet in the higheſt part thereof, moving and ſtirring it to Good, and ab⯑horring Evil’ ⁽¹⁷⁾. What is Sindereſis therefore, when thus explained, but the [40] natural Knowledge in Man to reject the Evil, and chuſe the Good? REASON is alſo explained by this celebrated author to the ſame effect:—‘After (or accord⯑ing to) the Doctors—Reaſon (ſays he) is the power of the Soul that diſcerneth between GOOD and EVIL, and be⯑tween GOOD and BETTER, com⯑paring the one with the other: the which alſo ſheweth virtues, loveth GOOD, and flieth VICES ⁽¹⁸⁾.’

[41]In the beginning of the Chapter, he expreſſes himſelf, as if he ſuppoſed that Man was indued with this divine faculty of Reaſon before the fall, even at the time "when he was created ⁽¹⁹⁾;" a doctrine which, certainly, is erroneous. [42] That our firſt parents received from God, when they were firſt created, a due proportion of Reaſon ſuited to their original condition, is not to be doubted; but there is no authority whatever to warrant the ſuppoſition of their being at firſt indued with that Perfection of Reaſon, that Attribute of a Divine and Spiritual Nature, which afterwards became natural to Man; though the worthy author apparently means this ſupreme degree of Reaſon, when he tells us, that Man, by the gift of Reaſon, is ‘made like to the dignity of angels ⁽²⁰⁾, diſcerning truth from falſehood, and Evil from Good;’ whereas it appears [43] very plainly from the Scriptures, that this Perfection of Reaſon was afterwards acquired by unlawfully eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge; for it is plain, that the deſire of acquiring Knowledge was part of the temptation to trangreſs: ("a tree to be deſired to make one wiſe," ſaid the deluded Woman) and it was not until they had both of them eaten the forbidden fruit, that God ſaid, ‘Be⯑hold, the Man is become AS ONE OF US, to know Good and Evil; (Gen. iii. 22.)’ thereby plainly alluding to the Knowledge then newly acquired by the for⯑bidden fruit; and they were driven out of the garden, we are expreſsly told, to prevent a further acquiſition to the Na⯑ture of Man, viz. ‘leſt he put forth his hand, and take ( [...]) ALSO of the tree of Life, and eat and live for ever;’ and therefore it is certain, that Man was not enlightened by the Divine Law of Reaſon within himſelf, when he was firſt [44] created; or at leaſt not with ſo great a ſhare of it, as has ſince been juſtly attributed to Human Nature.

The third article which I have before mentioned, as a principle neceſſarily in⯑cluded in that divine Knowledge of Good and Evil, which our firſt parents unlaw⯑fully took upon themſelves, is CON⯑SCIENCE; and the ingenious author of Doctor and Student, before quoted, in deſcribing the meaning of the word Conſcience, has accordingly explained it exactly as if he had been defining the true purpoſe of the former Principle, the Divine Knowledge of Good and Evil. ‘So God’ (ſays he) ‘has placed Con⯑ſcience in the midſt of the rational ſoul, as a light by which it ſhould diſcern what it ought to do, or ought not to do ⁽²¹⁾.’ This is exactly the [45] purpoſe of "the Knowledge of Good and Evil," viz. that we ſhould uſe it ‘as a light to diſcern what we ought to do, or ought not to do;’ or, in Scripture words, that we ‘may know to refuſe the Evil, and chooſe the Good. Iſa. vii. 15.’ and again in the 16th verſe.

From what has been ſaid, it muſt ap⯑pear, that Conſcience, Reaſon, and Sinde⯑reſis, though ſometimes treated as diſtinct Principles, are nevertheleſs eſſentially founded on one Great Principle, viz. the Divine Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL; and when our firſt parents, contrary to the commands of God, took that Know⯑ledge upon themſelves, the immediate effects of it were the moſt pungent work⯑ings of Conſcience! They were conſcious of their diſobedience to God! Conſcious of their ſhame and nakedneſs! Conſcious that the Divine Juſtice muſt purſue them, ſo that they would have even hid [46] themſelves, had it been poſſible, from the preſence of their Almighty Crea⯑tor! But how vain was the attempt to fly from God's univerſal preſence ⁽²²⁾, when they could not even ſeparate them⯑ſelves from the anxious warnings and forebodings even of their own Conſci⯑ences! For Conſcience maintained its new habitation in their throbbing breaſts, attending them in their moſt ſecret re⯑tirement with a ſtinging remembrance of their diſobedience and ingratitude! And as the wilful taking of Conſcience upon themſelves was the cauſe of all [47] their miſery; ſo the effect of that one fault was the entailing Sin and Death on all their deſcendants (who by the Laws of Nature muſt, neceſſarily, partake of that Nature which their parents ſo un⯑happily aſſumed) for thus—‘by one Man Sin entered into the world’ (as we are informed by the great Apoſtle of the Gentiles) ‘and Death by Sin; and ſo Death paſſed upon all Men’ ( [...]) in or through whom ‘all have ſinned. For until the Law’ (that is, even before the written Law of Moſes) ‘Sin was in the world: Alſo ⁽²³⁾ Sin is not imputed when there is no Law. But ⁽²⁴⁾ Death reigned from Adam to Moſes, even over them who had not ſinned after the ſimilitude of [48] Adam's tranſgreſſion, &c. (Rom. v. 12. to 14.)’ Apparently meaning, that as ‘Death’ (which was the effect and puniſhment of imputed Sin) ‘reigned from Adam to Moſes,’ (that is, "until the Law," [...]) ſo we ought to conclude, that ſome ſort of Law, previous to that of Moſes, preceded Sin, as Sin preceded Death, viz. (‘as Sin hath reigned unto Death,’ ſee ver. 21.) for otherwiſe Death could not have reigned before the written Law; and conſe⯑quently the Law, to be underſtood, by which "Sin entered into the world," and by which "Death paſſed upon all," and "reigned from Adam to Moſes," was the Law of internal Knowledge, or Conſci⯑ence, by which all Men, from the time of our firſt parents (Chriſt alone ex⯑cepted) are convicted Sinners! For as the Ways of Man are not equal to his aſſumed Knowledge, he is thereby ren⯑dered guilty, and obnoxious to the eternal [49] Juſtice of GOD, ‘in whoſe ſight ſhall no man living be juſtified! (Pſal. cxliii. 2.)’

Hence a temporal DEATH, or depar⯑ture from this world, is not the only fruit of Sin, but there is alſo a ‘certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery in⯑dignation, &c. (Hebrews x. 27.)’, the ſenſe of which is ſo deeply im⯑printed on the human Conſcience, that even the moſt hardened offender is, at ſome time or other, affected with it; otherwiſe Sin could not be eſteemed "the Sting of Death"—For if the na⯑tural light of Human Reaſon would per⯑mit men to indulge themſelves with a poſitive aſſurance, that Death is really the laſt period, or final diſſolution of their exiſtence, the Conſciouſneſs of Sin would not encreaſe the Fear of Death, and could not, therefore, with propriety be eſteemed "the Sting of Death." Death [50] is, indeed, the King of Terrors; and Na⯑ture ſhrinks at its approach! But the anguiſh of the guilty and unbelieving ſoul ſprings from a deeper ſource than Death! viz. the dread of what muſt follow it! This is a further effect of Reaſon and Human Knowledge: for though a man refuſes to be bound by the eternal Laws of Reaſon, yet Reaſon will inform him of his guilt, and its deſerts, and vindicate her injured Laws by dreadful expectation! for the very Devils believe and tremble! (James ii. 19.)

Horrible gloom! when Reaſon ſees no ground for hope!—Thus Conſcience, though not obeyed, is Conſcience ſtill; and a time, we know, will ſurely come, when men ſhall ‘begin to ſay to the mountains,’ fall on us; and to the hills, cover us ⁽²⁵⁾! (Luke xxiii. 30.)

[51] Death, therefore, it is manifeſt, is not the only object of the ſinner's fear, or men would never ſeek a hiding-place in what muſt be their graves, by wiſhing to be buried under the very mountains and hills, with the vain hope of ſecreting themſelves from the wrath to come! —And who is free from ſin?—In the ſight of God ‘ſhall no man living be juſtified. (Pſa. cxliii. 2.)’ And ‘with⯑out ſhedding of BLOOD is no remiſſion. (Heb. ix. 22.)’ Wherefore it is mani⯑feſt, that the BLOOD of every man is for⯑feited before God!—But the Almighty was graciouſly pleaſed to accept the BLOOD of animals (probably as an acknow⯑ledgment of that forfeiture, and as a [52] type of a future and more effectual re⯑demption) to atone for human guilt—‘For the life of the fleſh’ (ſaid God to Moſes) ‘is in the BLOOD: and I have given it to you upon the altar, TO MAKE AN ATONEMENT for your ſouls:’ for ‘it is the BLOOD that maketh an ATONE⯑MENT for the SOUL. (Lev. xvii. 11.)’

But as the Neceſſity of Redemption is thus obvious, ſo the means of obtaining it has been as clearly revealed: and therefore the ſame innate Knowledge of Good and Evil, which has rendered us obnoxious to GOD'S Eternal Juſtice through diſobedience, will lead us (if we uſe it as we ought) to repentance and amendment; and conſequently to reconciliation and eternal happineſs, through that more effectual propitiation and redemption, to which all mankind are invited by the Redeemer himſelf, who is ‘the WAY, and the Truth, and the Life:’ as ‘no man cometh unto [53] the Father, but by him. (John xiv. 6.)’ ‘For if through the offence of ONE’ (our firſt parent Adam) ‘MANY be dead; much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, (which is) by ONE Man, Jeſus Chriſt, hath abounded unto MANY. And not as (it was) by one that ſinned (ſo is) the gift; for the judgment (was) by one to condemna⯑tion, but the free gift (is) of many offences unto juſtification,’ &c. (See the contraſt as carried on by the Apoſtle Paul, in the 5th chapter of his Epiſtle to the Romans.)

Men ſeldom fall indeed into any very groſs offence againſt the Eternal Law, till they are initiated, as it were, by leſſer crimes; and have gradually ſtifled the natural reſtraint of the innate Knowledge or Conſcience before deſcribed; and then they are no longer worthy to be called Men, being more properly Brutes; be⯑cauſe [54] Conſcience, or the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which ſhould diſtinguiſh the Nature of Men from Brutes, doth no longer influence their actions.

The ſtate, indeed, of ſuch unhappy men is worſe than that of brutes; be⯑cauſe there is ſtill another capital diſ⯑tinction in their nature, which wicked men cannot caſt off, as they do Conſci⯑ence! they have a living Soul, which muſt, inevitably, be accountable for all their actions, as I have before remarked; and, therefore, when they prefer the temporal gratification of their paſſions (whether of Pride, Love of unlimited Power, Avarice, Luſt, Hatred, or Selfiſh⯑neſs) to the eternal welfare of their ſouls, they may be ſaid to ſell themſelves for nought; becauſe all unlawful paſſions are increaſed, inſtead of being ſatisfied, by indulgence; ſo that there is no Bondage [55] ſo wretched as that of Sin ⁽²⁶⁾; no Slave ſo truly miſerable, as the man who is a Slave to his Paſſions ⁽²⁷⁾. And, there⯑fore, when we are endeavouring to trace out ‘the Law of Nature, and Principles of Action in Men,’ it would be unrea⯑ſonable to ſearch for it among Slaves (I mean thoſe that are Slaves to their paſſions) becauſe ſuch MEN are not their own maſters, and conſequently are not worthy the name of MEN. It would be neither juſt nor charitable to draw [56] our concluſions concerning the Nature of Man from that depraved ſtate of Hu⯑man Nature, wherein the proper and natural diſtinction of Manhood (the KNOW⯑LEDGE of GOOD and EVIL, which we naturally inherit from our firſt parents) has loſt its influence!

No MAN, indeed, is perfect; neither are ALL MEN depraved; and though the depraved ſtate of man may, perhaps, be moſt general, it, certainly, is not uni⯑verſal; and therefore ‘the univerſal Principle of Action in Man’ is not to be drawn from thence. But it will be ſtill much more profitable for us to re⯑member (when any Rule of Obedience is propoſed as an univerſal Principle of Action) that it is not ſo much our buſineſs or intereſt to trace out what REALLY IS "the univerſal Principle of Action," as what it OUGHT TO BE. I have already produced the teſtimony of the moſt [57] learned and able lawyer among the Hea⯑thens, that ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil’ is an univerſal Principle, natural to mankind; and he ſo far eſteems it as "a Rule of Obedience," that he lays it down as the foundation of Law. ‘For Law (ſays he again in another place) is nothing elſe but right and divinely inſpired Reaſon, commanding what is ho⯑neſt, and forbidding the contrary’ ⁽²⁷⁾. But a modern, though very learned and reſpectable, law commentator, has re⯑ferred us to a different Principle, as a "Rule of Obedience," which is very liable to be miſunderſtood: he informs us in page 41, vol. 1. that the Creator ‘has graciouſly reduced the Rule of Obe⯑dience to this one paternal Precept,— That Man ſhould purſue his own Hap⯑pineſs.’ "This," (ſays he) ‘is the [58] foundation of what we call Ethics, or natural Law.’ Yet, in juſtice to the worthy author, it muſt be allowed, that the Happineſs, which he ſpeaks of, is not ſelfiſh, partial, or ſenſual Happineſs (for that would be a very improper ſub⯑ject for a "paternal Precept") but ‘real Happineſs,’ and ‘ſubſtantial Happi⯑neſs,’ as he further expreſſes himſelf in the ſame page; and no Happineſs can be "real," or "ſubſtantial," which is not laſting; ſo that it is plain this emi⯑nent writer means that laſting and ‘ſub⯑ſtantial Happineſs’ alone, which ariſes from Obedience to the will of God: for the Knowledge of which he refers us, at the ſame time, to the Holy Scriptures. See the following page 42.

Yet even ſuch "ſubſtantial Happineſs" can only be called an effect, of which a conſcientious Obedience to the will of God is one of the cauſes; but the primary [59] cauſe, or motive to that Obedience in good Men, is ſtill different from both; and yet none of them can be the proper foun⯑dation of Ethics, or natural Law.

The learned author has himſelf aſ⯑ſigned a more probable foundation in the preceding page, to which perhaps he might mean to refer by the prono⯑minal adjective "This," in the ſentence which immediately follows his ‘one paternal Precept,’ (viz. ‘This is the foundation of what we call Ethics, or natural Law’) for he obſerves in p. 40. that, ‘CONSIDERING the Creator only as a Being of infinite Power, he was able unqueſtionably to have pre⯑ſcribed whatever Laws he pleaſed to his creature Man, however unjuſt or ſevere. But as he is alſo a Being of infinite Wiſdom, he has laid down only ſuch Laws as were founded in thoſe relations of Juſtice that exiſted in the nature of things, antecedent to [60] any poſitive Precept.—THOSE RE⯑LATIONS of JUSTICE,’ then, on which the other Laws are founded, are properly THE FOUNDATION. And "theſe" (the learned writer himſelf tells us in the following ſentence) ‘are the eternal, immutable LAWS of GOOD and EVIL, to which the Creator him⯑ſelf, in all his diſpenſations, conforms; and which he has enabled Human Reaſon to diſcover, ſo far as they are neceſſary for the conduct of human actions.’ Thus THE FOUNDATION is clearly laid down, and there is no oc⯑caſion to aſſign any other Motive of Obe⯑dience to the ſeveral Laws on this Foun⯑dation, than what is mentioned in the ſame ſentence, viz. Human Reaſon, by which men are enabled to diſcover ‘theſe eternal and immutable Laws of Good and Evil.’ For the Knowledge of what is Good, or what is Evil, is ſurely a ſufficient Motive for chuſing the one, and rejecting the other; becauſe [61] Good, when known, is as truly amiable in itſelf, as Evil is deteſtable and fright⯑ful; ſo that the former moſt naturally engages our preference, without any other Motive than this natural Knowledge of their reſpective qualities.

Siniſter Motives do, nevertheleſs, too frequently prevail, through the extreme frailty of Human Nature, which engages the greater part of mankind in the pur⯑ſuit of temporal Intereſt, or partial and ſenſual Happineſs!

So that, if the learned commentator had mentioned Self-love, as the general, inſtead of the ‘univerſal Principle of Action,’ I ſhould not have thought myſelf obliged to have taken particular notice of that part of his work.

Several reaſons may be aſſigned why it cannot be admitted as the ‘univerſal Principle of Action.’

[62]And, firſt, Becauſe the moſt worthy actions, as I have already obſerved, are frequently occaſioned by a more generous motive than Self-love.

Secondly, Becauſe bad men are ſome⯑times prompted to good actions, through the influence of their own natural Know⯑ledge of Good and Evil, when the occa⯑ſion happens not to interfere with their particular views of private Intereſt, or their predominant Paſſions ⁽²⁸⁾: for, if this was not the caſe, it is obvious [63] (conſidering the great multitude of ſelfiſh men in compariſon of the Juſt) that ſociety could not exiſt.

And, thirdly, Becauſe bad actions, which moſt abound, manifeſtly tend, even in the opinion of the offenders themſelves, to defeat the moſt eſſential purpoſes of Self-love; for the moſt hard⯑ened [64] ſinners are conſcious, through their innate Knowledge of Good and Evil, that their unlawful temporary gratifications tend to deprive them of their "real" and "ſubſtantial happineſs," viz. Eternal Salvation; for if they had not this Con⯑ſciouſneſs of Evil, there could be no ſuch thing as preſumptuous ſin.

Self-love, however, under proper re⯑ſtrictions, is certainly a main branch of the Law of Nature; and, though it can⯑not be admitted as the ‘univerſal Prin⯑ciple of Action,’ is nevertheleſs an uni⯑verſal Principle; but it cannot be ad⯑mitted as a "Rule of Obedience," becauſe there are many occaſions when it ought to be ſuperſeded by more noble Motives to Action.

The Knowledge of Good and Evil is alſo an univerſal Principle in Man; though it is ſtill much farther from being ‘the [65] univerſal Principle of Action’ than "Self-love;" and indeed my preſent at⯑tempt is not to prove what is the ‘uni⯑verſal Principle of Action,’ but only what it ought to be, as I before remarked; being convinced, that ‘the one paternal Precept’ laid down by the learned Law Commentator (though certainly with good intentions, and probably with good authority from other Law Writers) as the "Rule of Obedience," (viz. ‘that we ſhould purſue our own Happineſs’) is very defective; becauſe the very Rule itſelf requires a multitude of other Rules to reſtrain it within due bounds, and curb the Self-love of individuals for the benefit of ſociety.

Nothing is ſo liable to be miſunder⯑ſtood as "our own Happineſs;" for when Self alone is the object, Self-love can imply nothing but Partiality and Self-preference; ſo that ſuch ‘a Rule of Obe⯑dience’ [66] is liable to afford a handle of excuſe for actions of mere Self-gratifica⯑tion, to which the learned and worthy author (or, perhaps, rather the adopter) of the hypotheſis would be entirely averſe: a Slaveholder, for inſtance, might al⯑ledge, that he ‘purſues his own Hap⯑pineſs,’ by extorting the unwilling ſervice of other men, becauſe he is thereby enabled to maintain himſelf and family, not only comfortably, but ele⯑gantly; and that the maintenance and ſupport of the ſugar iſlands, and conſe⯑quently the happineſs of his wealthy neighbours, depends upon the employ⯑ing of ſlaves; ſo that ſocial benefits do alſo ariſe from it: and he will likewiſe alledge, that he is obliged by ‘Self-love’ to perſiſt in the meaſure, be⯑cauſe he cannot maintain the ſame Hap⯑pineſs and comfort by any other means; ſo that he does not act contrary to ‘the Law of Nature, or the "Rule of [67] Obedience,"’ as laid down by the moſt eminent writers on the ſubject!

Thus the "paternal Precept" (as it is called) of purſuing our own Happineſs, may lead men to form a falſe eſtimate of neceſſity (or what they may think them⯑ſelves obliged to undertake, from their particular ſituation in life) and will afford them the like excuſe for any other vice, on which a man's temporal ſub⯑ſiſtence depends.

It is therefore an oblique Rule, which inſenſibly declines into mere Self-grati⯑fication, or private Intereſt, which is the bane of Equity and Juſtice; ſo that Self-love can no otherwiſe be admitted as a Rule, than for the purpoſe of meaſuring the due proportion of that Love which we owe to the reſt of Mankind, agreeable to a real "paternal Precept" that will [68] never deceive us; ‘Thou ſhalt love thy Neighbour as thyſelf. Lev. xix. 18.’

This excellent maxim of the Old Law is ſtrongly enforced and recommended in the New Teſtament, which ſhall hereafter be ſhewn: nay, the very Hea⯑thens, it ſeems, were not entirely igno⯑rant of this Divine Precept; for the favourite maxim of the Emperor Alex⯑ander Severus was much to the ſame effect, according to the report of Lam⯑pridius, quoted by the learned Joſeph Mede, Book 3. p. 550. viz. ‘Quod tibi fieri nonvis, alteri ne feceris." "Do not to another, what you would not have done to yourſelf.’ Neither has the doctrine been overlooked by the writers on the Law of Nature. Hobbes very judiciouſly refers us to this Rule of Obedience, ‘for the eaſy knowledge of what the Law of Nature [69] dictates.’ ‘When a Man doubts’ (ſays he) ‘whether what he is going to do to another be agreeable to the LAW OF NATURE, let him ſuppoſe himſelf in the others room.’ ‘For by this means’ (continues he) ‘when Self-love and the other paſſions, which weighed down one ſcale, are taken thence, and put into the contrary ſcale, it is eaſy to gueſs which, way the balance will turn’ And Baron Puffendorf ⁽³⁰⁾ remarks thereupon, that —‘this is no other than the great rule preſcribed by our Saviour himſelf, of doing to Men as we would be done by.’

The learned Baron, nevertheleſs, re⯑marks in the following paragraph—‘that this Precept cannot be eſteemed a fundamental Axiom of the Law of Nature; ſince it is only a corollary of [70] that Law, which obliges us to hold all Men equal with ourſelves; and therefore may be demonſtrated à pri⯑ori.’ But howſoever it may be capable of being demonſtrated, yet this is no juſt objection to Hobbes's excellent rule for knowing,— ‘what the Law of Na⯑ture dictates;’ eſpecially as the learn⯑ed objector ſeems, afterwards, to have ſought in vain for a more ‘fundamental Axiom of the Law of Nature:’ for I cannot find, that any thing, he has afterwards propoſed, is at all worthy to be compared with it, either as ‘a Foundation, or a "Rule of Obedience."’

Nevertheleſs, in juſtice to the learned Baron, I muſt obſerve, that he has well defended this general Rule againſt the objection of Dr. Sharrock.

‘Dr. Sharrock is of opinion’ (ſays he) ‘that this rule is not univerſal, [71] becauſe, if ſo, a judge muſt needs abſolve the criminals left to his ſen⯑tence; inaſmuch as he would certainly ſpare his own life, were he in their place: I muſt needs give a poor peti⯑tioner what ſum ſoever he deſires; becauſe I ſhould wiſh to be thus dealt with, if I was in his condition: or I muſt clean my ſervants ſhoes; be⯑cauſe I require him to clean mine.’

‘But the rule’ (ſays the learned Baron) ‘will ſtill remain unſhaken, if we obſerve, that not ONE Scale only, but BOTH are to be conſidered; or that I am not only to weigh and examine what is agreeable to me, but likewiſe what obligation or neceſſity lies on the other perſon, and what I can de⯑mand of him, without injuring either of our duties. Book 2. Chap. 3. p. 109.’

[72]Neither does the Baron's own objec⯑tion, which immediately follows, in the leaſt affect the propriety of Hobbes's rule ‘for the eaſy Knowledge of what the Law of Nature dictates:’ for though the nature of a Rule, or Principle of Doctrine (differing from active Princi⯑ples) be ſuch as to induce the neceſſity of ſuppoſing a prior Principle, or Inſtinct in man, whereby he may be enabled to ſuggeſt, adopt, approve, or obey this or any other Rule (which ſeems to be the reaſon of the Baron's refuſing to acknow⯑ledge this excellent rule, as ‘a funda⯑mental Axiom of the Law of Na⯑ture’) yet the learned Baron himſelf has multiplied the difficulty, by aſſign⯑ing ſtill another Rule, or mere Principle of Doctrine (viz. the holding all Men equal with ourſelves) as the foundation of this Rule, inſtead of a real firſt Cauſe, ſuch as the immediate Inſpiration of God; the Revelation of his Will in the Scriptures; [73] or the natural and divine Inſtinct of KNOWING GOOD and EVIL. For whe⯑ther the Precept is inculcated and made known to Man by Divine Revelation, immediate, or ſcriptural, or merely by the natural Inſtinct in Man, of knowing Good and Evil, it may nevertheleſs be juſtly eſteemed ‘a fundamental Axiom of the Law of Nature.’

The Jews and Chriſtians, indeed, are taught the value and importance of this Precept by the Holy Scriptures, yet this is not the only means of its being known and received among men as ‘a Rule of Obedience;’—for, beſides the example which I have already given concerning the Emperor Alexander Se⯑verus, it appears that the Gentiles, in every part of the world, have demon⯑ſtrated a ſenſe of this Precept, without the aſſiſtance of Scripture: not only the ancient Greeks and Romans, but the [74] remote inhabitants of China and Ame⯑rica: of which a few examples are here ſubjoined from the additional notes of the tranſlator of Puffendorf, p. 109. viz. ‘Ariſtotle’ (in Diogenes Laertius, Lib. 5. Segm. 21.) ‘being aſked how we ought to behave ourſelves towards our friends, anſwered, as we wiſh they would behave themſelves towards us. Lib. 2. tom. 2.’ ‘Quod quis juris in alterum, &c. Seneca de Ira, Lib. 3. c. 12.’ ‘Let us ſuppoſe ourſelves in the ſame circumſtances as the perſon with whom we are angry: That which now puts us in a paſſion is only the wrong opinion and eſtimate of ourſelves: We are unwilling to SUFFER what we are willing to DO.’ ‘'Tis a ſaying of Con⯑fucius’ (in Marcinus's Hiſt. Sin. Lib. 4. c. 25.) ‘Never do to another what you are unwilling to ſuffer from him. The ſame Precept was made uſe of by Ynca Manco Capac, the founder of [75] the Peruvian empire; in order to the reducing his ſubjects to a life of civility. De la Vega, L. 1. c. 21.’

Thus it appears, that not only the Heathen nations of Europe, but alſo the diſtant uninformed inhabitants of China and America, were endued, by their innate Knowledge of Good and Evil, with general ideas of that moſt excellent Precept which CHRIST himſelf has de⯑clared to be the true Chriſtian RULE OF ACTION: and which, therefore, may juſtly be eſteemed ‘a fundamental Axiom of the Law of Nature,’ viz. —‘All things whatſoever ye would that men ſhould do to you, do ye even ſo to them: for this is the Law and the Prophets,’ Matt. vii. 12. See alſo Luke vi. 31. The meaning and appa⯑rent intention of this GOLDEN RULE is exactly the ſame, in effect, as the other great commandment of the Law, ‘Thou [76] ſhalt love thy neighbour as thyſelf;’ ſo that all perſons, who carefully examine theſe and other parallel texts, muſt neceſ⯑ſarily be convinced, that the command to love our neighbour as ourſelves is the ‘ONE PATERNAL PRECEPT,’ or rather, I ſhould ſay, the ONLY ‘PATERNAL PRECEPT to which the Creator has graciouſly reduced the Rule of Obedience,’ ſince by the higheſt authority we are aſſured, that the equitable rule of ‘doing to others, as we would that men ſhould do unto us;’ or, in ſhort, to love our neighbour as ourſelves, ‘IS THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS;’ which im⯑plies as much as if our Lord had ſaid, This is the Spirit, or FIRST PRIN⯑CIPLE OF LAW, and contains the Sum and Eſſence of all other Laws! The teſti⯑mony of the Apoſtle Paul is nearly to the ſame effect—‘For ALL THE LAW’ (ſays he) ‘is fulfilled in ONE WORD, even in this, THOU SHALT LOVE THY [77] NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF. (Gal. v. 14.)’ Which might well be paraphraſed as follows: ‘ALL THE LAW IS FUL⯑FILLED IN ONE WORD;’—for ‘the Creator’—‘has graciouſly reduced the Rule of Obedience to this one paternal Precept’ (not,—‘that Man ſhould purſue his own Happineſs;’—but)— ‘EVEN IN THIS, THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS THYSELF;’ ſo that no other "paternal Precept" can poſſibly be received as a general Rule of Obedience for all occaſions except this alone; which muſt, therefore, be acknow⯑ledged as the fundamental Rule, both of Natural and Revealed Law. Concerning this Golden Rule of Action, I have wrote a ſeparate Tract under the title of the Law of Liberty, or Royal Law, to which I muſt beg leave to refer my readers for further remarks on that head.

[78]Having now proved, I hope, that this ‘FUNDAMENTAL AXIOM OF THE LAW OF NATURE’ ought to be ‘THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE OF ACTION IN MAN,’ I can more ſafely reſume my diſcourſe concerning ‘Principles of Action’ in general. It has already been ſhewn, that ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil’ is ‘an univerſal Principle’ in Man, as well as Self-love. But I muſt now remark, that the former has the following eſſential difference from Self-love as an univerſal Principle, viz. that it is never ſuperſeded, like the latter, by any juſt Motive of DUTY (though it is often violated in breach of DUTY through human Frailty); for all juſt Motives of DUTY are perfectly con⯑ſiſtent with it, and influence the heart under its direction and guidance, and even the moſt noble Motive to Action (independent of Inſpiration, or immediate Revelation) is ſo far from ſuperſeding [79] the natural "Knowledge of Good and Evil," that it may, more properly, be eſteemed an exertion of it: for inſtance, by a due exertion of ‘the Knowledge of Good and Evil,’ we promote the very firſt Principle of all Duty, as it is the firſt great commandment, viz. The Love of God; for if we have ‘Know⯑ledge to chuſe the Good, and reject the Evil,’ the ſame Knowledge muſt in⯑cline us to prefer the Author of all Good (when revealed to us) and his Com⯑mandments before every other conſide⯑ration; for ſo Abraham's Obedience in attempting to ſacrifice his ſon, was ren⯑dered acceptable to God: he knew his Maker and ſupreme Lord by unqueſtion⯑able Revelation; and, therefore, juſtly concluded, through his natural ‘Know⯑ledge of Good and Evil,’ that the Command of God ought to ſuperſede all natural Affection, and Self-love; ſo that this was an Effect of Reaſon, which [80] ſeemed to counteract even the Principles of Reaſon itſelf, by diſſolving all the ties of Nature! But the Patriarch thereby gave an ample proof of a ſincere Faith, and of an unfeigned Love to his Creator.

By what Principle of Action alſo was Moſes induced (though the meekeſt of Men) to remonſtrate to his Creator, when the Divine Indignation was declared againſt the Ingratitude and Wickedneſs of the children of Iſrael, in worſhipping the molten calf during the time that Moſes continued in the mount to receive the Law? God ſaid to Moſes—‘I have ſeen this people, and behold, it is a ſtiff⯑necked people: now therefore LET ME ALONE, ( [...] LET ME REST,’ that is, from your interceſſions) ‘that my wrath may wax hot againſt them, and that I may CONSUME THEM: and I will make of THEE a great nation. Exod. xxxii. 9, 10.’ Now, if "Self-love" had been [81] "the univerſal Principle of Action," Moſes would not have declined the acceptance of ſuch a diſtinguiſhed honour, when tendered to him even by the ALMIGHTY LORD OF THE UNIVERSE, whoſe right of diſpoſal could not juſtly be called in queſtion! But the faithful miniſter of the Iſraelitiſh commonwealth did not ſeem to entertain the leaſt ſenſe of that imaginary "paternal Precept" mentioned above, ‘that Man ſhould purſue his own Happineſs:’ for his anſwer on that occaſion proves, that he was actuated by a Principle infinitely ſuperior to Self-love; I mean a true and unfeigned Zeal for the Glory of God, ariſing from a right uſe of his natural diſcretion, or ‘Know⯑ledge of Good and Evil,’ which di⯑rected his choice, and enabled him to ſet aſide all conſideration of SELF, or private worldly Intereſt, when he thought the circumſtances of the pro⯑poſition ſeemed likely to affect the ho⯑nour [82] of GOD in the miſinformed opi⯑nion of the Egyptians and other Hea⯑then. For he ‘beſought the Lord his God,’ (though God had previouſly forbid him, ſaying, "LET ME ALONE") ‘and ſaid, Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot againſt thy people, which thou haſt brought forth out of the land of EGYPT, with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore ſhould the EGYPTIANS ſpeak and ſay, For miſ⯑chief did he bring them out, to ſlay them in the mountains, and to conſume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath’ (ſaid Moſes to the ALMIGHTY) ‘and repent of this evil againſt thy people.’ And he alſo claimed the promiſe by which GOD had abſolutely bound himſelf to the Patri⯑archs—‘To whom (ſaid Moſes) thou ſwareſt by thine OWN SELF, and ſaidſt unto them, I will multiply your ſeed,’ &c. And the text immediately, informs [83] us, that ‘the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (Exod. xxxii. 7. to 14.)’ Thus God was pleaſed to manifeſt his regard and conſideration even for Human Judg⯑ment!—even for the opinion of a mere Man, when founded on Reaſon, and other juſt Principles, ſuch as mankind are capable of exerting! And ſhall earthly monarchs, then, preſume to deſpiſe any reaſonable remonſtrance of their fellow men—of their equals in every other reſpect, except that of a de⯑legated office, when it is apparent that even the SUPREME LORD, and MAKER OF ALL THINGS, has condeſcended to hear and graciouſly receive a remon⯑ſtrance from his Creature Man! Nay, and that repeatedly on various occaſions! The like remonſtrance was alſo made by Moſes, when God declared his anger againſt Iſrael, for murmuring at the re⯑port given of the promiſed land; and [84] for propoſing to return into Egypt; and alſo for attempting to ſtone Joſhua and Caleb, who had endeavoured to appeaſe, and convince them of their error. See the 14th Chapter of Numb. ver. 7. ‘And the LORD ſaid unto Moſes, how long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the ſigns which I have ſhewed among them? I will ſmite them with the peſtilence, and diſinherit them, and will MAKE OF THEE’ (ſaid GOD to Moſes) ‘a great⯑er nation, and mightier than they.’

But the noble Principles (far ſuperior to Self-love) by which that Great Mi⯑niſter of State generally regulated his conduct, once more prevented his, ac⯑ceptance of the glorious promiſe, even though tendered by his Maker! His ſincere regard for the Glory of God, agreeable to the firſt great Commandment, made him jealous that the Heathen nations ſhould [85] falſely conceive, that the LORD JEHO⯑VAH was not able to bring his people (the Iſraelites) into the land which he "ſware unto them;" ſo that his Zeal for the Glory of God was, manifeſtly, the principal Motive of his anſwer on that occaſion ⁽³¹⁾. And though a natural Affection (or brotherly Love) for his [86] countrymen might, probably, be alſo in⯑cluded as an additional Motive to his in⯑terceſſion (worthy our imitation) yet his "own Self-love" was, manifeſtly, quite out of the queſtion; ſince he might have attained for himſelf the higheſt pitch of worldly glory, without for⯑feiting his real or eternal Happineſs by ſuch an acquiſition; for as the offer was made by ‘the God of the Spirits of all Fleſh,’ the acceptance of it could not have been imputed to him as ſinful; though the contrary behaviour was ap⯑parently more agreeable to the will of the Almighty, who was pleaſed to ſig⯑nify his approbation of Moſes's remon⯑ſtrance and interceſſion, by declaring to him—‘I have pardoned according to thy word.’ Numb. xiv. 11. to 20.

[87]Alſo upon the rebellion of Korah, re⯑lated in the 16th chapter of Numbers, when God ſpoke to Moſes and Aaron, ſaying,—‘Separate yourſelves from among this congregation, THAT I MAY CON⯑SUME THEM IN A MOMENT.’ Yet theſe two great leaders of Iſrael were ſo little actuated by that imaginary ‘uni⯑verſal Principle of Action’ SELF-LOVE, that they were entirely regardleſs of their own danger, notwithſtanding the divine warning, and ſeemed to have no other care, but that of endeavouring to ſave their brethren from GOD'S wrath; for it does not appear, that they retreated, or ſeparated themſelves ‘from among the congregation,’ as they were expreſſly directed, but only "fell upon their faces," and exerted the powers of Human Reaſon in the following ſhort remonſtrance to their Maker—‘O GOD, THE GOD of the Spirits of all Fleſh, ſhall ONE MAN SIN, and wilt thou be wroth with ALL [88] THE CONGREGATION?’ Numb. xvi. 20—22.

The like Remonſtrance, founded in ſound Reaſon and natural Equity, had once before been made even to the Al⯑mighty himſelf, by his faithful Servant ABRAHAM, when God condeſcended to reveal to him the awful decree of Divine Vengeance againſt the populous cities of the plains of Sodom.

—‘Wilt thou alſo deſtroy the Righteous with the Wicked?’ (ſaid Abraham ⁽³²⁾ ‘—ſhall not the LORD of all the earth DO RIGHT?’

[89]Thus a due exertion of right Reaſon demonſtrated the Dignity of Human Na⯑ture, and the examples, juſt mention⯑ed, ſufficiently prove, that THE AL⯑MIGHTY requires his Creature Man to judge of Right and Wrong, and to form and declare a ſound Judgment upon the eternal Principles of Juſtice and Right⯑eouſneſs, agreeable to that Divine Know⯑ledge with which the Human Mind is moſt certainly endowed.

Though Abraham and his deſcendants, Moſes and Aaron, knew that they could not exiſt, even a ſingle moment, without the immediate protection of Divine Pro⯑vidence, yet they thought it their duty to remonſtrate even to their CREATOR on the eternal Principles of ‘Juſtice and Judgment!’

THE ALMIGHTY SEARCHER OF HEARTS knew beforehand what they [90] would ſay, and the propriety of their future anſwers; and, therefore, undoubt⯑edly afforded them theſe extraordinary opportunities of proving to all mankind their Knowledge of Good and Evil, as well as their Faith and entire dependence on the eternal "Juſtice and Judgment" of the Divine BEING, that theſe clear ex⯑amples of the Knowledge and Dignity of Human Nature, as alſo of the regard and conſideration which even the great Au⯑thor of that Nature was graciouſly pleaſed to manifeſt, on thoſe occaſions, towards the mental Faculties of his Creature Man, might be recorded to the end of time!

Concerning the Spirit of ‘Juſtice and Judgment’ with which Abraham was endowed, God previouſly declared —‘I know him, that he will command his children, and his houſhold after him, and they ſhall keep the way of the Lord [91] to do JUSTICE and JUDGMENT, &c. (Gen. xviii. 19.)’ So that Abraham's Remonſtrance, wherein he appealed to "the JUSTICE and JUDGMENT" of GOD, was apparently agreeable to the foreknowledge and expectation of the Almighty, as well as the other Remon⯑ſtrance of Abraham's deſcendants, Moſes and Aaron. For theſe extraordinary ex⯑ertions of Human Reaſon, in appealing to the Divine Juſtice, were ſo far from being offenſive even to THE SUPREME AND ETERNAL SOVEREIGN OF THE UNIVERSE, that, on the contrary, he clearly manifeſted his approbation by the gracious manner in which he accepted and anſwered theſe human petitions! He condeſcended to ſatisfy the righteous and juſt Spirit of ABRAHAM, by an aſſu⯑rance, that even "if ten righteous per⯑ſons" only could be found amongſt the wicked nations in the plains of Sodom— ‘I will not deſtroy it’ (ſaid he) ‘for [92] the tens ſake’ ⁽³³⁾. And to the Re⯑monſtrance of Moſes and Aaron (the de⯑ſcendants of the juſt ABRAHAM) the like favourable attention was paid by ‘the God of the Spirits of all Fleſh:’—for as their petition was offered up in behalf of the whole Congregation (viz. that they might not ſuffer for the fault of one or a few perſons) God condeſcended to ſpare the Congregation, though they had juſtly incurred the forfeiture of life by joining ⁽³⁴⁾ the haughty and factious princes of Iſrael in open rebellion to the Divine Ordinances, contrary to the [93] cleareſt evidence of all their ſenſes! For Moſes, on offering up this ſhort petition, was immediately directed to ſeparate the Congregation from the more notorious offenders—‘Speak unto the Congregation, ſaying,—Get ye up from about the taber⯑nacle of KORAH, DATHAN, and ABI⯑RAM.—And MOSES roſe up, and went unto DATHAN and ABIRAM; and the Elders of Iſrael followed him. And he ſpake unto the Congregation, ſaying, Depart, I pray you, from the tents of theſe wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, leſt ye be conſumed in all their ſins.’—And accordingly all perſons, that had grace ſufficient to repent of their connections with theſe wicked men, —‘Gat up from the tabernacle of Ko⯑rah, Dathan, and Abiram, on every ſide:’ And immediately afterwards God was pleaſed to juſtify Moſes, and to demonſtrate the truth of his Divine Miſ⯑ſion, by a tremendous and unuſual exam⯑ple [94] of Vengeance ⁽³⁵⁾ upon the hardened offenders and their families! (Numb. xvi. 1. to 40.) And this being done in the preſence of the whole Congregation, (then a populous nation) the evidence of it (which is handed down to us by their deſcendants, the Jews, and has alſo been confirmed, from time to time, by other inſtances of Divine Vengeance upon the ſame nation) was thereby rendered inconteſtable!

Nevertheleſs, the very next day, ‘all the Congregation of the children of Iſrael murmured againſt Moſes, and againſt Aaron, ſaying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord.’—This further rebellion having once more provoked the Divine Juſtice, the cloud covered the tabernacle, and the glory of the Lord appeared! And Moſes and Aaron were once more [95] commanded to ſeparate themſelves from the Congregation, that a National Ven⯑geance might take place!—‘Get you up from this Congregation’ (ſaid the Al⯑mighty) ‘that I may CONSUME THEM AS IN A MOMENT.’ Nevertheleſs, theſe two worthy Miniſters of God diſ⯑covered no ſenſe of fear for themſelves, whilſt the national danger demanded their endeavours in behalf of their brethren; and therefore, inſtead of ſeparating them⯑ſelves, as they had been once more com⯑manded, they, once more, ‘FELL UPON THEIR FACES,’ to implore the Di⯑vine mercy and forgiveneſs of the na⯑tional iniquity; ſo that Self-love was manifeſtly ſuperſeded by Patriotiſm and brotherly Affection! And as the plague was already begun among the people, the mediation of theſe two men was ſo far favoured by the God of Iſrael, that Moſes was inſpired with wiſdom and preſence of mind to inſtruct his Brother Aaron how to ‘make an atonement for the [96] people’ by the burning of incenſe— And accordingly Aaron ‘ſtood between the dead and the living; and the plague was ſtaid.’ Numb. xvi. 41—48.

Theſe are unqueſtionable examples to demonſtrate, that "Self-love" is not "the univerſal Principle of Action."

Upon a former interceſſion alſo of Moſes in behalf of his ungrateful coun⯑trymen, he permitted his natural Affec⯑tion for them, to carry him (ſeemingly) far beyond the bounds of Reaſon and Moderation, in his expreſſions to the Almighty ⁽³⁶⁾; even ſo far as to wiſh, that he himſelf might be blotted out of [97] God's Book ⁽³⁶⁾, if the ſin of the people was not forgiven! So that Self-love is by no means ‘the univerſal Principle of Action.’

The affectionate Apoſtle Paul ſeemed alſo equally anxious for the eternal wel⯑fare and proſperity of the ſame great Na⯑tion; and he expreſſed the like unbound⯑ed Love towards them, by one of the ſtrongeſt hyperbolical expreſſions (as Mr. Burkitt calls it) that he could poſſibly have choſen for that purpoſe.—‘I could wiſh’ (ſays he) ‘that myſelf were accurſed from Chriſt for my brethren my kinſmen according to the fleſh. (Rom. ix. 3.)’ And though the Apo⯑ſtle, by the words— [...], might perhaps mean to refer only to [98] that anathema of temporal miſery and de⯑ſtruction denounced by Chriſt himſelf, againſt Jeruſalem, and the unbelieving Jewiſh nation, for their open rejection of the Goſpel ⁽³⁷⁾; yet it is manifeſt, [99] that the affectionate and truly patriotic Apoſtle would have been ready to ſuffer every kind of temporal miſery, and even to lay down his Life for the refractory Nation, if he could thereby have averted the approaching vengeance from his countrymen, and reſtored them to Grace and the promiſed Privileges of the Goſpel, to which they had been the firſt invited of all other nations! And therefore we cannot ſurely conceive, that ‘the Prin⯑ciple of Action,’ or Motive to ſuch a declaration, was Self-love.

[100]The diſintereſted Principles of this Apoſtle are evident alſo from ſome other expreſſions, and eſpecially from that in his Epiſtle to the Romans, (v. 7.) viz. ‘—peradventure for a good Man’ (ſays he) ‘ſome would even dare to die;’ which idea totally excludes the Principle of Self-love. But though the Apoſtle's Expreſſions ſufficiently prove that Self-love was not his Principle of Action, yet the ſame was more effectually demonſtrated by his Life and Practice!

And again, When we read of JONA⯑THAN'S inviolable Friendſhip towards DAVID, can we conceive, that he was actuated, by Self-love? We cannot men⯑tion that Principle without injuſtice to the generous character of that truly noble Prince, unleſs we ſpeak of it comparatively, to ſhew, that his Friend⯑ſhip and brotherly Love was equal to it; for the Scripture repeatedly informs us, that he loved DAVID "as his own Soul."

[101]It was not an unreaſonable Friendſhip; he was well convinced of the Merit and Virtue of DAVID; for on theſe he found⯑ed his Love; and he had too much Vir⯑tue himſelf to violate a reaſonable Friend⯑ſhip, even though his own private Inte⯑reſt and very Inheritance was at ſtake!

Theſe points were moſt earneſtly preſſed upon him with all the authority that an anxious worldly-minded father could poſſibly aſſume, and yet without effect—‘As long as the Son of Jeſſe liveth upon the ground’ (ſaid Saul to Jona⯑than) ‘thou ſhalt not be eſtabliſhed, nor thy kingdom; wherefore now ſend and fetch him unto me, for he ſhall ſurely die.’ Now, if Self-love had been the Principle of Action with JONATHAN, he could not have greater temptation! But he knew how ‘to refuſe THE EVIL, and CHUSE THE GOOD,’ and would not, therefore, ſubmit (like modern ſtateſmen) to the wretched policy of [102] doing "Evil that Good might come!"— Honour and Juſtice were his ‘Principles of Action;’ and he was willing to riſque, not only his worldly dignity and ſtate, but his life alſo, rather than injure and forſake an innocent man! ‘Where⯑fore ſhall he be ſlain?’ (ſaid he) ‘What harm hath he done?’—And when he found that his father perſiſted in his baſe reſolution, he was filled with honeſt in⯑dignation; and, as the text informs, ‘roſe from the table IN FIERCE ANGER’ —not on account of his father's inju⯑rious behaviour to himſelf, in attempt⯑ing to kill him with a javelin, but be⯑cauſe ‘he was grieved FOR DAVID’ (ſays the text) and that ‘his father had done him ſhame. See 1 Sam. xx. 31. to 34.’

And again—Was David, King of Iſ⯑rael, actuated by Self-love, when he ten⯑dered his own Life, to ſave the Lives of his Subjects, praying God to ‘Let his [103] hand be againſt him, and againſt his father's houſe,’ inſtead of the nation in general?

Surely his Principles of Action were very different from Self-love, or from that imaginary PATERNAL PRECEPT of "ſeeking his own Happineſs!"

His Conſcience probably informed him, that he was guilty before God in having numbered the Iſraelites, to ſatisfy ſome vain or preſumptuous curioſity concern⯑ing the Strength of the Nation, at a time when his whole confidence and hope of ſucceſs againſt his enemies ought to have been placed in GOD alone; and he would perhaps then recollect, that the ſame ſinful Preſumption within himſelf, which had occaſioned the undertaking, had alſo occaſioned ⁽³⁸⁾ the neglect of that tribute [104] or offering to God, which, in the Law, is expreſſly enjoined to be given as a ranſom for the Soul of every individual of that nation, whenever they ſhould be num⯑bered, viz. half a ſhekel for every one: ‘When thou takeſt the ſum of the children of Iſrael, after their number’ (ſaid GOD to Moſes) ‘then ſhall they give EVERY MAN A RANSOM FOR HIS SOUL UNTO THE LORD, when thou numbereſt them: that THERE BE NO PLAGUE among them when thou num⯑bereſt them,’ &c. See Exod. xxx. 12. to 16.

[105]REASON and CONSCIENCE therefore taught him, that he himſelf was the principal aggreſſor; and theſe juſt Prin⯑ciples, joined to a patriotic Regard for the Preſervation of his Countrymen, cer⯑tainly induced him to preſent himſelf to God as the proper victim of divine Vengeance!—For ‘DAVID ſpake unto the LORD, when he ſaw the angel that ſmote the people, and ſaid—Lo, I have ſinned, and I have done wickedly: but theſe ſheep, what have they done? Let thine hand, I pray thee, BE AGAINST ME, AND AGAINST MY FATHER'S HOUSE, &c. 2 Sam. xxiv. 17.’

It would, ſurely, be highly abſurd to attribute ſo pathetic and penitent a de⯑claration to the Principle of Self-love ⁽³⁹⁾. [106] The Monarch of Iſrael was actuated by a much leſs reaſonable ‘Principle of [107] Action,’ (and ſtill very oppoſite to Self-love) when he uttered that bitter [108] lamentation for the death of his wicked, rebellious, and inceſtuous Son Abſalom —‘Would to GOD’ (ſaid he) ‘I had died for thee my Son!’

NATURAL PATERNAL AFFECTION was more powerful in this caſe than REASON; and every other Principle of Action, even Self-love (which is alſo a natural Affection, and generally very po⯑tent) was entirely ſuperſeded by it: for the King moſt earneſtly wiſhed, that he himſelf had died, inſtead of that unna⯑tural wretch, who (he was well aware) ceaſed not, whilſt he lived, to plot his father's ruin, being an enemy (he well knew) that was implacable, that was reſtleſs, and impatient to deprive him, [109] not only of his kingdom, but of his life; and had already violated his bed, in the moſt publick and ſhameleſs manner, with the deteſtable crime of inceſt!— There was no room to hope for the reformation of a wretch that had ſo entirely loſt all diſtinction between GOOD and EVIL!—No gleam of happineſs for his injured father, but in his death!— And yet paternal Affection compelled the latter to eſteem even his own death pre⯑ferable, if he could thereby have pro⯑longed the wretch's life!—‘O my Son Abſalom, my Son, my Son Abſalom!— Would to God’ (ſaid he) ‘I had DIED FOR THEE, O Abſalom, my Son, my Son! 2 Sam. xviii. 33.’

Thus it appears that SELF-LOVE is by no means ‘the univerſal Principle of Action,’ ſince there are other Affec⯑tions, which ſometimes ſuperſede it, and become the leading Principles of Action.

[110]A certain noble Author of the laſt century, in a work, intituled ‘A View of the Soul,’ has ſeveral chapters con⯑cerning the Power and Influence of the Affections over all the other natural fa⯑culties, Reaſon itſelf not being excepted: and in one chapter he attempts to prove, ‘that ſome Affection is the ſubſtantial Part of the Soul’ ⁽³⁹⁾. But though [111] the Affections are certainly to be eſteemed "Principles of Action," yet they cannot [112] at any rate be admitted as ‘Rules of Obedience’ (as I have before obſerved concerning the Affection of Self-love) be⯑cauſe the generality of Mankind are more liable to be influenced by evil, miſplaced Affections, than by thoſe which might tend to their real Happineſs.

The Affections of the avaricious Man, for inſtance, are all ſubordinate to his Affection for amaſſing temporal wealth: —he may love his wife and children, perhaps, when the natural Affections of [113] the huſband and parent do not interfere with his predominant paſſion for riches; but, whenever they do, the wretch loſes all feeling for his own fleſh and blood, and will eagerly ſacrifice to MAMMON the peace of his family, and the hap⯑pineſs of his beloved children, even in the moſt material circumſtance of their lives! And though ſuch a wretch is ſometimes influenced, indeed, by the more general Principle of Self-love (that is, whenever the conſideration of Self happens to fall in competition with his duty to other men) yet even Self-love itſelf muſt yield to the Love of Hoarding, ſince it is the well-known characteriſtic of the Miſer to withhold all the com⯑forts of life, even from HIMSELF, in order that he may indulge his unreaſon⯑able Affection for amaſſing wealth; which Depravity, if not aſſiduouſly and care⯑fully checked in time, will moſt ſurely increaſe with age, till it becomes inve⯑terate [114] and irreſiſtable, and entirely en⯑ſlave its wretched Votary!

It would be well for ſuch men, if they deprived themſelves only of tem⯑poral comforts; but, alas, AVARICE defeats SELF-LOVE, even in its moſt im⯑portant concern, Eternal Welfare. ‘Go to now ye Rich Men, weep and howl of your miſeries that ſhall come upon you.’ James v. 1. Compare this with what has already been mentioned in pages 23—30.

The depraved Appetites and Affections of Drunkards and Gluttons are alſo PRINCI⯑PLES OF ACTION, which are frequently too powerful both for Reaſon and Conſci⯑ence, and even for Self-love! for they too often lead Men with their eyes open to certain deſtruction, even though they are warned by the cleareſt Conviction and Foreknowledge concerning the inevitable conſequences of their reſpective vices! Diſeaſes, miſery, and death may ſtare [115] them in the face, and mark them, by their gradual approaches, as the unfor⯑tunate victims of theſe criminal indul⯑gencies;—but how ſeldom do they deter! Nay, the certain expectation even of eternal damnation is not ſufficient to re⯑form them; and the learned Dr. Hales has produced an example ⁽⁴⁰⁾ concern⯑ing Drunkards, to prove that they would go on, even though they ſhould ſee Hell-Fire before their eyes!

The depraved Affections for every other vice, as Luſt, Gaming, &c. are equally capable of ſupplanting the univerſal [116] Principles of Self-love and Common Senſe; and do frequently carry Men headlong to deſtruction, when it is impoſſible but that they muſt have foreſeen the neceſſary conſequences of their inordinate pur⯑ſuits!

How carefully therefore ought Man⯑kind to guard themſelves againſt every unlawful Affection; and ſtrenuouſly to reſiſt them, whenever they occur, leſt any undue Affection ſhould become the reigning Principle of Action, and lead the poor enſlaved mortal to eternal deſtruction! ‘From whence (come) wars and fightings among you? (Come they) not hence, (EVEN) OF YOUR LUSTS, THAT WAR IN YOUR MEMBERS? Ye LUST, and have not: ye KILL, and deſire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, becauſe ye ASK NOT. Ye ASK, and receive not, becauſe ye ASK AMISS, that ye may conſume it upon [117] your LUSTS. Ye ADULTERERS and ADULTERESSES, know ye not that the friendſhip of the world is enmity with God?’ James iv. 1—4.

But many actions which may ſeem ap⯑parently to have been occaſioned merely by corrupt Affections, are nevertheleſs promoted by a more latent cauſe: I mean the Inſpiration or Influence of the ſpiritual Enemies ⁽⁴¹⁾ and Deceivers of Mankind, [118] which muſt alſo be reckoned amongſt the various Principles or Motives to [119] Action; becauſe nothing can be more certain, than that theſe incorporeal MA⯑LIGNANT BEINGS take a moſt dan⯑gerous advantage (though unperceived) of all immoral carnal Affections in un⯑guarded worldly Men; and do thereby lead the unwary and careleſs Liver into the moſt deteſtable Slavery ⁽⁴²⁾, that [120] they may diſhonour the work of God, and prepare the deluded Mortal for eter⯑nal ſhame and puniſhment!

[121]The amazing power and force of the unlawful Affections, which I have already deſcribed, cannot reaſonably be account⯑ed for, on any other Principles. We have no right, however, to murmur at God's permiſſion of ſpiritual Temptations (whereby the Divine Knowledge of Good and Evil, preſumptuouſly aſſumed by Man, is proved and tried) eſpecially as the Almighty has mercifully been pleaſed [122] to give us the moſt ample warning throughout the Scriptures of our con⯑tinual danger; inſomuch that the Chri⯑ſtian Church hath generally made the neceſſary reſiſtance to Evil Spirits an ex⯑preſs Article of the Baptiſmal Vow, viz. To ‘renounce the Devil and all his Works.’ Nevertheleſs, the unreaſon⯑able Hereſy of the Sadduces (who were the Deiſts of ancient times) not only ſubſiſts to this day, but ſeems even to prevail in a moſt dangerous degree; for there are many people amongſt us, who profeſs to believe the Scriptures, and yet affect to diſbelieve the exiſtence of thoſe malignant ſpiritual Beings, commonly mentioned and ſignified under the name of "the Devil," though the Scriptures afford the cleareſt teſtimony concerning them: but our modern Sadduces endea⯑vour to explain all texts, wherein Devils or Evil Spirits are mentioned, as mere cuſtomary figures of ſpeech expreſſive of [123] ſome Evil Affections, and ſometimes of mere bodily Diſorders ⁽⁴³⁾. Howſoever plauſible this kind of ſophiſtry may ap⯑pear, [124] where applied to ſome few parti⯑cular paſſages, yet there are others ſo [125] clear in the literal expreſſion, and ſo well guarded by the ſcope or intention [126] of the ſubject delivered in the context, that it is impoſſible to wreſt them from [127] the obvious literal meaning, without perverting all the rules of grammar and common ſenſe.

[128]We are moſt carefully warned by the great Apoſtle to the Gentiles, to be upon our guard againſt theſe powers of darkneſs.

‘Put on the whole Armour of God,’ (ſays he) ‘that ye may be able to ſtand AGAINST THE WILES OF THE DE⯑VIL. For we wreſtle not with FLESH and BLOOD, but againſt PRINCIPA⯑LITIES, againſt POWERS, againſt THE RULERS OF THE DARKNESS OF THIS WORLD, againſt ſpiritual Wick⯑edneſs in high places.’ Eph. vi. 11, 12.

In the ſame Epiſtle (iv. 27.) the Apoſtle ſtill further warns the Epheſians againſt the SPIRITUAL ENEMY. ‘Nei⯑ther’ (ſays he) ‘give place, to the DEVIL.’ And, in his 2d Epiſtle to [129] the Corinthians (ii. 10, 11.) he ſignifies his forgiveneſs to ſome offending perſon (probably meaning that fornicator whom he ordered in the 1ſt Epiſtle (Chap. 5.) to be excommunicated. He ſays, ‘for your ſakes (forgave I it) in the perſon (or in the ſight or preſence) of Chriſt; leſt SATAN ſhould get an advantage over us: for we are not ignorant of his De⯑vices.’ The Apoſtle James alſo warns us upon the ſame points: ‘Reſiſt the Devil’ (ſays he) ‘and he will flee from you.’ (iv. 7.) And the Apoſtle Peter is ſtill more particular in his ad⯑vice on this head—‘Be ſober, be vigi⯑lant;’ (ſays he) ‘becauſe your Ad⯑verſary THE DEVIL, as a roaring Lion, walketh about, ſeeking whom he may devour. Whom RESIST ſteadfaſt in the faith,’&c. 1 Pet. v. 8.

The ſame Apoſtle alſo tells us, that ‘GOD ſpared not THE ANGELS that [130] ſinned, but caſt them DOWN TO HELL, and delivered them into CHAINS OF DARKNESS, to be reſerved unto Judg⯑ment. (2 Pet. ii. 4.)’ The Word which is here tranſlated "down to HELL," viz. [...] (‘down to Tar⯑tarus,’ or ‘in Tartarus;)’ is derived from the Greek verb [...], Terreo, to dread, or be in Terror; ſo that even if Tartarus, or Hell, does not ſignify a real Place ⁽⁴⁴⁾, it ſignifies, at leaſt, an actual [131] State or Condition of extreme Terror and horrible Darkneſs, in which even SPI⯑RITS [132] may be involved, or (as it were) bound; for the Apoſtle, by the idea of Darkneſs here expreſſed, may perhaps [133] allude to a total Excluſion from the Light, Comfort, and Influence of the Divine Grace, or an entire Withdrawing of the glorious CREATOR'S Light and Spirit, by which Excluſion or Withdrawing, the wilful Reprobacy of theſe rebellious An⯑gels might, probably, have been fixed upon them, as an indelible ſtain of in⯑famy, to mark them for future puniſhment, and to exclude them from all hope of eſcaping the Divine Juſtice! So that thoſe Spiritual Beings, which once were glorious in their Nature (being created "Angels of Light") have rendered them⯑ſelves moſt inglorious and deteſtable, by miſuſing that Liberty, in which the benevolent Creator had placed them; for they ‘kept not their firſt Eſtate ⁽⁴⁵⁾, but’ wickedly withdrew themſelves from "their own Habitation," and have [134] thereby been the wilful Authors of their own diſgraceful and depraved Na⯑ture (the Diabolical Diſpoſition); which is founded only in their own voluntary wickedneſs; ‘for GOD IS NOT (the Author) OF CONFUSION ⁽⁴⁶⁾, BUT OF [135] PEACE. (1 Cor. xiv. 33.)’ ‘God cannot be tempted with Evil, neither [136] tempteth he any Man,’ or rather, he tempteth NONE, ( [...]) no Beings what⯑ſoever, [137] (James i. 13.) and—‘Out of the Mouth of the Moſt High proceedeth not EVIL and GOOD?’ (Lam. iii. 38.) ſo that as Iniquity can have no Fellowſhip ⁽⁴⁷⁾ [138] with GOD, theſe Apoſtate Spirits have, of courſe, been totally excluded from every Ray of the Divine LIGHT; whereby, in⯑ſtead of continuing Angels of Light, as at firſt created, they are become totally dark, and oppoſite in every Principle to the LIGHT, Goodneſs, and Mercy of THE AL⯑MIGHTY; ſo that they may now be called, with propriety, ANGELS of DARK⯑NESS; for tho' they ſometimes deceit⯑fully aſſume the oppoſite character ⁽⁴⁸⁾, in order to deceive the unwary, yet their Power is only of Darkneſs ⁽⁴⁹⁾, being [139] bound (as it were) in the dark Chains ⁽⁵⁰⁾ of their own Iniquity or Reprobacy—in the "everlaſting Chains" of horrible Darkneſs ⁽⁵¹⁾, whereby they are effectu⯑ally "reſerved for Judgment," without being deprived of that activity, in exer⯑ciſing the malignity of their fixed re⯑probate Principles, and proneneſs to do Evil, which the Scriptures in many other paſſages attribute to them. For without ſome ſuch ſuppoſition, how ſhall we [140] reconcile the above-mentioned text of the Apoſtle Peter, as alſo that which is parallel to it in the Epiſtle of Jude, (wherein the fallen Angels are repre⯑ſented as bound ‘in everlaſting Chains under Darkneſs unto the Judgment of the Great Day)’ ⁽⁵²⁾ with thoſe other texts before quoted from the Apoſtles Paul, James, and Peter, concerning the Activity and Vigilance of Diabolical Spi⯑rits.

The Apoſtle Paul, as I before re⯑marked, warns us of ‘the Wiles of the DEVIL,’ (by which word, in the ſingular number, is commonly under⯑ſtood the Prince ⁽⁵³⁾, or Chief of the [141] fallen Angels), and tells, that ‘we wreſtle not againſt FLESH AND BLOOD, but againſt PRINCIPALITIES, againſt POWERS, againſt the Rulers of the DARKNESS of this World, &c.’ Eph. vi. 11, 12.) being a clear declaration of the Agency and Activity of theſe inviſible Spiritual Beings.

Again, the Apoſtle James tells us, to ‘reſiſt the DEVIL, and he will FLEE from us;’ which excludes every idea of his being actually bound in chains of confinement. And the Apoſtle Peter repreſents him as ‘a roaring Lion, that WALKETH ABOUT, ſeeking whom he may devour;’ which abſolutely for⯑bids the belief of a local confinement in any one place: ſo that the Chains of Darkneſs in Tartarus may very well ex⯑preſs [142] ſuch a total Darkneſs of Apoſtacy and abſolute Reprobation, as I have ſup⯑poſed, wherein the diſobedient Angels are bound and reſerved for the day of Vengeance; for ‘THE EVERLASTING FIRE ⁽⁵⁴⁾ prepared for the DEVIL and HIS ANGELS; (Matt. xxv. 41.)’ [143] being marked and diſtinguiſhed from other Spirits by their confirmed propen⯑ſity [144] to Evil, and their continual oppo⯑ſition to every good Principle; which [145] renders their final condemnation to that "everlaſting Fire" inevitable; for "the DEVILS alſo believe and tremble:" (James ii. 19.) by which, it ſeems, they fore⯑know their own certain condemnation, like thoſe abandoned. Human Sinners, who ‘ſin WILFULLY after (they) have received THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH;’ to whom ‘there remain⯑eth no more Sacrifice for Sins, but a cer⯑tain fearful LOOKING FOR of Judg⯑ment and fiery Indignation, which ſhall devour the Adverſaries. Heb. x. 26, 27.’

[146]This clear deſcription of Human Re⯑probacy opens to us a very probable idea of the Angelic Reprobacy, or the mode whereby the Nature of Devils was firſt occaſioned; and at the ſame time proves, that Men are equally liable to fall into the ſame lamentable Degeneracy and horrible Apoſtacy from God, and there⯑by may become a ſort of Devils ⁽⁵⁵⁾, but indeed, of a very baſe and inferior [147] order: for though they may be EQUAL, perhaps, IN WICKEDNESS (when the reſtraining Power of Conſcience, or the Divine Knowledge of Good and Evil, is entirely effaced, or withdrawn from them) yet they muſt remain as much INFERIOR IN POWER and ABILITIES, as Human Nature is inferior to the cre⯑ated Part of Devils, I mean the Angelic Nature; for the Scriptures inform us, that ANGELS ‘are GREATER in Power and Might; (2 Pet. ii. 11.)’ and con⯑ſequently muſt retain a GREATER pro⯑portion of both, (i. e. Power and Might) even in their fallen State, than reprobate Men.

The Devils, or Satanical Spirits, are conſtantly repreſented in the Scriptures to be as diametrically oppoſite in their Nature to the infinite Goodneſs of GOD, as Darkneſs is to Light ⁽⁵⁶⁾; as Falſe⯑hood [148] ‘Ye are of your Father the DEVIL, &c. When he ſpeaketh a LYE, he ſpeaketh of HIS OWN: for he is a LYAR, and the Father of it. John viii. 44.’ is to Truth ⁽⁵⁸⁾; as implacable and unprovoked Malice ⁽⁵⁹⁾ is to ever⯑laſting Mercy and Love ⁽⁶⁰⁾! And, there⯑fore, as they were really "Angels" in "their firſt Eſtate," ſo entire a change in their very nature may fairly be ac⯑counted as "Chains of Darkneſs"—of horrible Darkneſs! wherewith they are bound, as it were, and reſerved for eter⯑nal Judgment, without hindrance or impediment to their natural activity in promoting Evil, as far as God is pleaſed to permit, in order to prove the Faith [149] of Mankind; as in the ſevere trials of Job's patience, and alſo in the tempta⯑tion even of our Lord himſelf, which cannot be otherwiſe underſtood than in a literal ſenſe; for CHRIST in his Hu⯑man Nature, not only overcame thoſe extraordinary exertions of the Devil's power, related by the Apoſtle Matthew (Chap. 4.) and the Evangeliſts Mark (Chap. 1.) and Luke (Chap. 4.) but was alſo ‘in all points tempted like as we are (yet) without Sin.’ Heb. iv. 15.

And our Lord alſo declared the earneſt wiſh and activity of the Spiritual Enemy to overcome the Faith of the Apoſtle Peter—‘Simon, Simon’ (ſaid our Lord) ‘Behold, SATAN HATH DESIRED (to have) YOU, that HE MAY SIFT (you) AS WHEAT: but I have prayed for thee, that thy Faith fail not: and when thou art converted, ſtrengthen thy bre⯑thren. Luke xxii. 31, 32.’ This is [150] a clear Revelation that Human Nature is really liable to the impulſe and temp⯑tations of wicked Spirits ⁽⁶¹⁾, which will certainly prevail over us, and become [151] the Principles of Action, if we are not careful and vigilant to reſiſt them as we ought: for Chriſt did not forbid the Tempter from uſing his endeavours againſt Peter, but only prayed, that THE FAITH of the Apoſtle ſhould not fail; whereby he has taught us, that a ſound and ſtedfaſt FAITH (for which WE ALSO are bound to pray) will ſufficiently enable us to reſiſt the POWERS OF DARKNESS.

But when Men diſbelieve the very exiſtence of thoſe active Spiritual Ad⯑verſaries, how ſhould they be upon their guard to reſiſt their influence? For Un⯑belief in the exiſtence of Spiritual Beings will certainly be promoted, even by the DEVILS themſelves, in all places where⯑ever they can gain advantage by it, and eſpecially wherever Scepticiſm, Deiſm, [152] and the groundleſs notions of the Sad⯑ducees, are openly ſet up in oppoſition to the clear teſtimonies of revealed Re⯑ligion, and the true Faith: for in all ſuch places, it is obvious, that the in⯑tereſt of Satan's empire will be promoted by a diſbelief of his exiſtence; and con⯑ſequently, that the Angels of Darkneſs will, in ſuch places, moſt carefully abſtain from every outward and viſible demon⯑ſtration of their agency and power among Men. Whereas at other times, and in other places, where ignorance of a con⯑trary nature has prevailed, and Men have been ſubjected to ſuperſtitious ter⯑rors, by neglecting the only proper ob⯑ject of their confidence, in ſuch places, I ſay, the Agency and Interference of DEMONS with Mankind have ever been notorious and manifeſt; of which the hiſtories of all Heathen nations bear ample teſtimony.

[153]The uniformity of Demon Worſhip, in all parts of the world, before the preach⯑ing of the Goſpel, affords alſo a clear proof of the worldly Empire of Satan; for though Devils were worſhipped under various names, and various figures, yet there was a conſtant uniformity in all ſuch particular points as tended moſt to the Deſtruction of Mankind, or to lead Men to the moſt direct oppoſition to the revealed Laws of God, whereby the univerſal Author or Promoter of ſuch baneful devices was clearly diſcoverable; the ſame being for the moſt part con⯑trary to the Nature of Man, and ſuch, therefore, as could not naturally pro⯑ceed from Man alone.

Hence we may plainly account for the univerſal adoption of Human Sacri⯑fices amongſt all Heathen Nations! Some of theſe deluded people withheld not even their own offspring from their Spiri⯑tual [154] Deceiver; the ſpilling of Human Blood being moſt grateful to that Being, who "was a MURDERER from the be⯑ginning "⁽⁶²⁾. Hence we may alſo account for the Cuttings in the Fleſh for the dead, and the marking or tattooing of the ſkin, which ſtill prevails amongſt the African and American nations, and the preſent uninformed Iſlanders of the South Seas, as much as it formerly did amongſt the Picts, and other more ancient Hea⯑thens; for their marks in the fleſh were certainly intended by the Spiritual De⯑ceiver, as a ſort of Dedication to him⯑ſelf ⁽⁶³⁾, and as an affront to the Divine [155] Creator, who formed Man without any ſuch unnatural diſtinctions, and expreſſly [156] commanded in his revealed Law.—‘Ye ſhall not make any cuttings in your fleſh for the dead,’ (or rather FOR THE SOUL) ‘nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord’ (that is, JEHOVAH, the only eternal BEING.) Levit. xix. 28.

And as the "forbidding to marry" is declared in Scripture to be ‘a Doctrine of Devils’ ⁽⁶⁴⁾; ſo we accordingly [157] find, that amongſt the ancient Heathens there was an order of Nuns or Prieſteſſes (called Veſtal Virgins) that were bound, contrary to Nature, in vows of CELI⯑BACY; and amongſt the Heathen Tar⯑tars, Chineſe, and other idolaters, even to this day ⁽⁶⁵⁾, there are diſtinct orders [158] of Men, it ſeems, as well as Women, laid under the ſame unnatural reſtraint [159] through the inſtigation of their ſpiritual Adverſary ⁽⁶⁶⁾; and yet the ſame De⯑ceiver [160] promoted, almoſt univerſally a⯑mongſt the Heathen, as a ſacred Rite, [161] the promiſcuous uſe of Woman, in order to draw Men by their natural Luſts to [162] join the ſuperſtitious Congregations of his Worſhippers.

Of this kind were the Rites of Venus among the Greeks, Romans, and (more particularly among) the inhabitants of Cyprus ⁽⁶⁷⁾; the ſhameful Rites of Aſ⯑tarte [163] (whom the Heathens called Queen of Heaven) in her temple at Byblus ⁽⁶⁸⁾: Thoſe of Thammuz ⁽⁶⁹⁾ (or Adonis) [164] among the Phoenicians, Syrians, and Apoſtate Jews: Thoſe of Tanais, or Anaitis, among the Armenians ⁽⁷⁰⁾: And thoſe of MYLITTA, the Aphrodite, or Venus of the ancient Babylonians, and more Eaſtern nations, at whoſe ſhrines women of all ranks, even of the firſt quality, were required once in their lives to proſtitute themſelves ⁽⁷¹⁾. The [165] impious Rites of BAAL-PEOR (whereby many of the Iſraelites were enſnared by "the Council of Balaam" ⁽⁷²⁾ ſeem to have been of the ſame kind ⁽⁷³⁾; and to increaſe the temptation to Demon worſhip, it appears that the women of the firſt quality, among the daughters of Moab and Midian, were not exempted from that moſt diſgraceful and pernicious pollution, baneful both to body and ſoul: for the Midianitiſh woman, that [166] proſtituted herſelf to Zimri the Sime⯑onite (and was killed, together with her captivated Iſraelitiſh paramour, by Phi⯑neas) is expreſſly declared to have been the daughter of Zur ⁽⁷⁴⁾, who was ‘HEAD OVER A PEOPLE, and of a CHIEF HOUSE in Midian.’ (Numb. xxv. 15.) And he is mentioned after⯑wards as one of THE KINGS of Midian. (Numb. xxxi. 8.)

Thus "the Council of Balaam" pro⯑moted the ſervice and worſhip of Devils; and this ſhould warn us of the extreme danger of yielding to the crime of For⯑nication, which, in all ages and nations, has been uſed as a ſnare to vilify man⯑kind, and enſlave them to Spiritual Ad⯑verſaries: for as THE FORBIDDING TO MARRY is unqueſtionably THE DOC⯑TRINE [167] OF DEVILS (ſee p. 156 preceding) whereby thoſe, who devote themſelves to ſuch unnatural commands, fall under more ſevere Temptation to FORNICA⯑TION ⁽⁷⁵⁾, ſo, on the other hand, [168] FORNICATION is reciprocal in its effects, by being one of the moſt baneful ob⯑ſtacles to lawful and virtuous MARRI⯑AGE, and, conſequently, to the increaſe and multiplication of mankind: but this, bad as it is, is not the worſt con⯑ſequence of habitual FORNICATION; for men, being thereby drawn away from the ſervice and worſhip of their Creator, [169] are gradually led to greater crimes, whereby their minds are more and more darkened, like thoſe of the fallen Angels, until they are totally deprived of the Light and Image of their Creator, and loſe both temporal and eternal Happi⯑neſs!

When Men are IN BONDAGE to their own Luſts, there is no doubt but that Satan has already "got an Advantage" over them; and, by their Luſts, and unreſtrained Affections, does hold them IN BONDAGE alſo to himſelf! So that a Man cannot free himſelf from Spiritual Bondage, without forſaking and repent⯑ing of his favourite ſins; for we can have no direct idea of reſiſting the Devil (as the Scriptures command us) but that of reſiſting Evil, wherever we perceive it, whether in thoughts, words, or actions. But when Men entirely neglect this ne⯑ceſſary reſiſtance to Evil, they are ſure [170] to be led on from one vice to another, till the two before-mentioned natural and univerſal Principles in Mankind, in⯑tended for their Preſervation, viz. Com⯑mon Senſe (or Reaſon) and Self-love, have loſt their influence: for the Actions of of a great part of Mankind cannot be accounted for upon any other Principle than that of a lamentable BONDAGE to the SPIRITUAL ADVERSARY, who leads them to actions that are clearly contrary to Self-love and Common Senſe, and con⯑trary even to any probable gratification that might afford a Temptation to Hu⯑man Beings!—to actions that apparently tend to their own everlaſting deſtruction!

How common is it for Men to lift their hands againſt their own life, and deliberately to exclude themſelves from all poſſibility of repentance? It muſt be allowed indeed, that real Madneſs, or Lunacy, and other natural diſtempers [171] and frenzies, are frequently the Princi⯑ples of Action which occaſion Suicide; but we have too many inſtances of de⯑liberate Self-murder, wherein no ſuch natural cauſes can with juſtice be al⯑ledged, though generally aſſigned by the coroner's juries, through a falſe notion of mercy, which inclines them to adopt the erroneous maxim, that ‘all Men are mad who kill themſelves.’ But nothing is more falſe!

If the Brute Creation were equally liable to voluntary deaths, Suicide might with more probability be attributed to natural cauſes only, as they are almoſt equally liable to diſtempers; but herein appears a capital diſtinction between Human Nature and that of Brutes. None of the BRUTE CREATION ever violate the univerſal Principle of SELF-LOVE, which the Divine Author of Na⯑ture has given them for their preſerva⯑tion! [172] And though MAN is alſo endowed with the ſame Principle, as I have already ſhewn, yet the very BRUTES make ſo much better uſe of it than MAN, that in them we diſtinguiſh the ſame Principle, even by another name, and call it IN⯑STINCT—an INSTINCT of Self-preſer⯑vation—an Inſtinct, becauſe it is never violated. How are we to account for this ſeeming Superiority in the BRUTES? Why ſhould HUMAN NATURE be more ſubject to Depravity than they are? MAN, who, in addition to that natural Light with which he was endowed at the time of his Creation, has ſince ac⯑quired an additional power of diſcern⯑ment and prudence for his preſervation, even a Divine Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL, that he ‘may know how to refuſe the EVIL, and chuſe the GOOD;’ and yet is in general infinitely more depraved than the very BRUTES! Let any rea⯑ſonable Man conſider how impoſſible it [173] is, by natural Cauſes, to account for ſo extraordinary a circumſtance! That MAN, endowed with ſuch a Superiority of Knowledge for SELF-PRESERVATION, and alſo endowed with Self-love in com⯑mon with the reſt of the Creation, ſhould yet be ſubject to ſuch monſtrous Depravity, as to loſe all ſenſe of both, while the BRUTES are never known to violate that univerſal Principle, Self-love! except it be for a reaſonable Cauſe, that they riſk their own Lives in defence of their young, to preſerve their ſpecies, or through gratitude, as Dogs will de⯑fend their maſters, which ſurely is no Depravity! To what extraordinary cauſe then ſhall we attribute this very ſingular ſuperiority of BRUTES in a circumſtance ſo neceſſary to happineſs. The cauſe is obvious, BRUTES have never been ſub⯑ject to ſpiritual Deluſions, or to be actuated by infernal Spirits, ſince the time that the Serpent deceived our firſt parents!

[174]There is no inſtance, I believe, ſince that time, of BRUTES being really actu⯑ated by evil Spirits, except one; and that was (be pleaſed to obſerve) by expreſs Permiſſion of our LORD himſelf, viz. when the Devils entered into the ſwine by the lake of Genneſareth. For it appears, that the Demons had no power to enter into the animals, till our Lord had ex⯑preſſly granted it: for—‘the Devils BESOUGHT HIM, ſaying, If thou caſt us out, SUFFER US to go away into the herd of ſwine, and he ſaid unto them, Go.’ THE PERMISSION being thus gained, the animals immediately ac⯑quired a new "Principle of Action," too ſimilar to that which actuates poor aban⯑doned ſinners among MEN (as when the Devil entered Judas, and led him, not only to betray his Lord, but to puniſh the horrid treaſon with his own hands, contrary to every conceivable Natural Principle of Action) ſo the unhappy Brutes [175] by Genneſareth were no ſooner ſubjected, like Mankind, to the Bondage of infernal Spirits, than they immediately loſt that Principle of Self-love, which in them (becauſe never violated but at this par⯑ticular time) is called Inſtinct; and by the immediate conſequence of that loſs, they have afforded us a notable example of the baneful effects of Diabolical In⯑ſpiration ⁽⁷⁶⁾, to which at all other times [176] Mankind alone are ſubjected;—for ‘be⯑hold’ (ſays the text) ‘the whole herd [177] of ſwine ran violently down a ſteep place into the ſea, and periſhed in the waters. Matth. viii. 28—32.’

[178]Thus the Influence of EVIL SPIRITS became, manifeſtly, a Principle of Action [179] in the poor Brutes, which overpowered their ‘Natural Inſtinct of Self-preſer⯑vation,’ [180] and hurried them headlong to deſtruction; and the cauſe being [181] known, it is very natural to conclude, when we ſee ſimilar Effects in Human [182] Beings, that the ſame "Principle of Action" may perhaps have produced [183] them; eſpecially if there be no previous circumſtances of Diſtemper or Diſtraction, [184] which may leave room to hope, that another Cauſe might reaſonably be aſſign⯑ed. [185] And as the example alſo ſhews us, that Devils have no power to enter Brutes [186] without expreſs Permiſſion of the Creator, let us, by a comparative conſideration of [187] our own bodies, learn to be continually upon our guard againſt the devices and [188] inſtigations of our ſpiritual Enemies, always remembering, that they need no [189] ſuch expreſs Permiſſion from God to enter the Human Body; or rather, that God [190] has already lodged the Power of permit⯑ting or reſiſting them, entirely in the [191] Human Breaſt; ſince we are by Nature continually liable to receive the Inſpira⯑tion of the Devil and his Angels as a "Principle of Action," if we neglect the neceſſary Reſiſtance commanded in the Scriptures; and conſequently, that they already have Permiſſion from God to enter all Human Beings, I mean all thoſe as [192] are capable of diſcerning between Good and Evil, and do not reject the Evil as they ought, according to that Divine Knowledge which we inherit from our firſt Parents!

This Peculiarity in our Nature is there⯑fore apparently the reaſon why Spiritual Adverſaries are permitted by the Al⯑mighty to approach Mankind, though they have no ſuch general Permiſſion with reſpect to the reſt of the animal Creation. But Man took the Knowledge of Good and Evil upon himſelf, contrary to the ex⯑preſs commands of God, as I have be⯑fore remarked; and therefore we have no right to murmur at the Permiſſion which God has granted to ‘the Devil and his Angels,’ to take poſſeſſion of all unguarded Souls, which unhappily yield to their ſuggeſtions and tempta⯑tions, without reſiſtance or repentance; and more eſpecially we have no right to mur⯑mur [193] (I ſay) at this Permiſſion, if we con⯑ſider that God has given us fair warning of our continual danger and warfare with the Principalities and Powers of Darkneſs; as the Holy Scriptures plainly inform us, that we are continually liable to Satanical influence; and that the DEVIL will get an advantage over us, if we do not reſiſt him as we ought!—In this neceſſary Reſiſtance, and the objects of it, conſiſt the principal exerciſe of that aſſumed Knowledge of Good and Evil, for which we are accountable; viz. we know Evil from Good, and conſequently know when we ought to reſiſt; but if we do not reſiſt, then we have choſen the EVIL, and (in whatſoever mode the EVIL is manifeſt) have given Advantage to the Devil, and ſubmit ourſelves to his Bondage. The Choice therefore, which is ſet before us, amounts to this—Whether we will chuſe ‘the Kingdom of God, and his Righteouſneſs, (Mat. vi. 33.)’ [194] and cheerfully aſſent (as the dignity of Human Nature requires) to that ‘per⯑fect Law of Liberty,’ which Chriſt has tendered to us for the regulation of our conduct towards all Mankind, as well as for Self-preſervation? or—Whether we rather prefer the Empire of SATAN, the ſpiritual Enemy, for the ſake of thoſe temporal gratifications and vile indul⯑gences, by which he holds Men in Bon⯑dage, through their carnal affections, till they become perſonal Enemies, even to themſelves!

The aſſumed Principle of ‘knowing Good and Evil,’ will undoubtedly in⯑duce all Mankind moſt readily to CHUSE ‘the Kingdom of God, and his Righteouſ⯑neſs; (Mat. vi. 33.)’ but this is not a CHOICE to be made merely once in our lives, but to be continually maintained, or the prudent CHOICE will avail nothing! Are not Men in general bound by a ſo⯑lemn oath in the outward rite of Water-Baptiſm, [195] thus to maintain that prudent CHOICE which they publickly profeſs? And yet how little do their practices in general correſpond with ſuch a reſolu⯑tion! Surely, ‘the Mammon of Unright⯑eouſneſs, (Luke xvi. 9.)’ ‘the PRINCE of this World,’ that had been ‘caſt out, (John xii. 31.)’ ‘the Principalities, Powers, and Rulers of the Darkneſs of this World, (not FLESH AND BLOOD)’ with whom we have to WRESTLE, do apparently prevail over a great multitude in every rank of life! For, ‘this is the Condemnation, that Light is come into the World, and Men loved DARKNESS rather than LIGHT,’ (a lamentable Choice! a ſhameful proſtitution of the Knowledge of Good and Evil! but the Apoſtle aſſigns the reaſon) ‘becauſe,’ (ſays he) ‘their Deeds were EVIL. For every one that doeth EVIL, hateth the LIGHT, neither cometh to the LIGHT, leſt his Deeds ſhould be reproved. But [196] he that doeth the Truth, cometh to the LIGHT, that his Deeds may be made manifeſt, that they are wrought IN GOD. John iii. 19. to 21.)’ Let us therefore be upon our guard, and ‘put on the whole Armour of God, that (we) may be able to ſtand againſt the WILES OF THE DEVIL. (Epheſ. vi. 11.)’

But though Human Nature is thus liable to the Influence of ‘the Devil and his Angels,’ let us remember at the ſame time for our comfort, that it is equally capable of being actuated by DIVINE INSPIRATION; and that Man⯑kind (in the glorious FREEDOM of the Goſpel) are equally left to their CHOICE for the admiſſion of that ſupreme Good, "THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST," to regulate their Principles of Action in all caſes, as they are for the admiſſion of the contrary Spirit, ‘the Prince of Darkneſs!’ For the Promiſes of CHRIST relating to that heavenly Gift are clear [197] and abſolute, and are tendered to all Mankind without exception, that they may exerciſe their natural Knowledge of GOOD and EVIL, in CHUSING, ACCEPT⯑ING, and continually CLAIMING them, if they really prefer "the Kingdom of God" to "the Kingdom of this World!" Here is true Freedom! a Charter of ineſtimable Privileges! ‘ASK, and it ſhall be GIVEN YOU; SEEK, and ye ſhall FIND; knock, and it ſhall be OPENED unto you, &c. (Mat. vii. 7.)’ And again, "All things whatſoever ye ſhall ASK IN PRAYER, be⯑lieving, ye ſhall receive." (Mat. xxi. 22. and Mark xi. 24.) And after theſe ge⯑neral promiſes, our Lord appealed to the common Senſe of his hearers concerning the efficacy of a ſon's requeſt to a natural Father, to obtain things that are neceſ⯑ſary for him; and concludes thereupon —‘If ye then being EVIL, know how to give GOOD GIFTS to your Children: HOW MUCH MORE ſhall your heavenly Father GIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT to [198] them that ASK HIM? (Luke xi. 9. to 13.)’ So that every Man, who de⯑voutly, and with due Faith, claims that glorious GIFT according to the Promiſe, and with ſuch a diſpoſition of mind as the Scriptures require, will undoubtedly receive it, "for he is faithful that pro⯑miſed." Heb. x. 23.

I am well aware how uncommon it is to introduce theſe religious topicks into Tracts of Law, but as the Divine Influ⯑ence of THE HOLY SPIRIT upon Man⯑kind may certainly be eſteemed the ſu⯑preme "Principle of Action in Man," I am obliged, by the nature of my ſub⯑ject, to cite ſome teſtimonies concerning the general effect of that heavenly Gift, to which all Mankind are entitled; for ſuch is the compound Nature of Man, that Enquiries concerning ‘Human Nature,’ and ‘the Principles of Hu⯑man Actions,’ cannot be fairly and [199] carefully defined, without a careful exa⯑mination of this Human Claim to DIVINE INSPIRATION; nor indeed without a careful warning alſo againſt that very oppoſite and foreign Spiritual Influence, which is equally liable to alter Human Nature, and become ‘the Principle of Action;’ which I hope I have already ſufficiently proved from Scripture. And therefore with reſpect to the former, viz. the ineſtimable Claim to Divine Inſpiration which we hold in CHRIST, it is proper to be remarked, that the peculiar and neceſſary Effect of that glorious and hea⯑venly Gift, is a total change in the Nature of Man (from his fallen State, before deſcribed, to ‘A NEW CREA⯑TURE’) by a Regeneration or New Birth through THE SPIRIT; to which God has alſo been pleaſed to annex (as neceſſary on our firſt publick Admiſſion to the Claims and Privileges of the Goſpel) an outward viſible Sign alſo, or [200] typical Waſhing with Water ⁽⁷⁷⁾; by which we bear a publick or outward teſtimony of that true Faith, which alone can qualify our claim to the pro⯑miſe.

Thus Man, through the privileges of the Goſpel, becomes "A NEW CREA⯑TURE," (2 Cor. v. 17.) and partakes even of THE DIVINE NATURE, if his [201] own earneſt and ſincere endeavours are not wanting; for the Apoſtle PETER has expreſſly declared, that this is one of the effects of our Lord's moſt gra⯑cious promiſes. ‘Grace and Peace be multiplied unto you (ſaid the Apoſtle) through the Knowledge of GOD, and of JESUS OUR LORD, according as his DIVINE POWER hath given unto us all things that (pertain) unto Life and Godlineſs, through the Knowledge of him that hath called us TO GLORY and VIRTUE: whereby are given unto us EXCEEDING GREAT AND PRECIOUS PROMISES; that by theſe ye might be PARTAKERS of the DIVINE NATURE (ΚΟΝΩΝΟΙ) having eſcaped the Corruption that is in the World through Luſt. (2 Pet. i. 2. to 4.)’

Hence the Dignity and Superiority of MAN over the reſt of the viſible [202] Creation is manifeſt! We not only poſ⯑ſeſs, by natural Inheritance from our firſt Parents, a DIVINE ATTRIBUTE (as I have already ſhewn in the former part of this Tract) viz. the Knowledge of Good and Evil; but alſo, by a right uſe of that Knowledge, in CHUSING and pre⯑ferring the Good, and in REJECTING and reſiſting the Evil, we are capable alſo (through CHRIST) of PARTAKING "even of the DIVINE NATURE;" ſo that if we conſider this moſt extraordi⯑nary Privilege, which is tendered to us on the one hand, and that deplorable Condition on the other hand, which we ſhall probably fall into, if we neglect it (viz. the partaking of the Diabolical Na⯑ture by the inſpiration of the Devil and his Angels; to which, as I have already ſhewn, we are continually liable, if we do not watch, and reſiſt); it muſt be be evident that MAN is either the moſt [203] glorious, or the moſt miſerable and baſe of all other Creatures!

Surely the conſideration of theſe things ought to humble the pride of thoſe in⯑conſiderate perſons, who, on account of mere temporal honours, and worldly poſſeſſions, are ſo lifted up above their brethren, as to forget that they have no natural Precedency; but expect that the multitude of inferiors in fortune ſhould implicitly ſubmit to the will of the worldly ſuperior, in all things; and who alſo ſeem to loſe all ſympathetick concern, all ſenſe of fellow-feeling for the wants and ſufferings of their poor dependants, as if they ſprung from a different Stock, and were not of EQUAL DIGNITY in the SIGHT OF GOD!

But, alas, PRIDE is a Principle of Action, which occaſioned the Fall even [204] of SATAN himſelf ⁽⁷⁸⁾, and of his An⯑gels, and is equally pernicious to Hu⯑man Nature; for it renders MANKIND more liable to forfeit that glorious Liberty, thoſe ineſtimable Privileges, which I have before deſcribed, than any other vice! And the reaſon is plain; for THE PROUD MAN, of all others, is moſt liable to neglect that "ROYAL LAW," which I have already mentioned—that GOLDEN RULE, by which their notions of poli⯑tical government, and their behaviour to all Mankind, ought to be regulated; for if he was not guilty of this neglect, he [205] would neceſſarily ceaſe to be PROUD, he would ceaſe to be uncharitable; he would ceaſe to be an Advocate for arbitrary Power, either in political Deſpotiſm, or in domeſtick Slavery, both of which now unhappily prevail almoſt throughout the whole world! for even the enlightened Engliſh Nation is no longer qualified to cenſure the unnatural Oppreſſion of the Peaſantry and lower orders of people in Ruſſia, Poland, France, ſome Part of Germany, and in many other States, which are commonly called Chriſtian; ſince the Engliſh Government have pub⯑lickly favoured, and do continue to en⯑courage the moſt abominable Oppreſ⯑ſions that ever diſgraced Mankind; I mean the AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE carried on from England, and THE TOLERATION OF SLAVERY IN THE BRITISH COLONIES! Let the Advo⯑cates for theſe Oppreſſions ſeriouſly and carefully conſider the DIGNITY and [206] EQUALITY of HUMAN NATURE, which I have deſcribed, as well as their own STATE OF PROBATION in this life, and the Forfeiture of ineſtimable Privileges to which they are continually liable, and I truſt they will become ſen⯑ſible of their danger!

But, alas, there are many other cauſes of failure, which tend to deprive Man⯑kind of that glorious and eternal Dignity, for which ALL MEN ſhould be candi⯑dates: for beſides the ordinary tempta⯑tions of worldly Pleaſures ⁽⁷⁹⁾, which draw the bulk of Mankind from con⯑ſidering the true means of obtaining the glorious promiſes of the Goſpel, how often are the minds of Men puffed up with Self-ſufficiency, and the PRIDE OF HUMAN LEARNING, and too often [207] even with SPIRITUAL PRIDE, whereby they ſuffer themſelves to be perverted through the deceitfulneſs even of their own ſophiſtry!

How can ſuch Men avail themſelves of the glorious Promiſe of DIVINE IN⯑SPIRATION, as "a Principle of Action," if they form to themſelves a Mode of believing, which is totally different from "the Faith once delivered to the Saints?"

Perhaps they will ſay—‘We do aſk the aſſiſtance of God's Holy Spirit, and have as good a Right as others to ſup⯑poſe that God's Promiſe is fulfilled in us;’ nevertheleſs they muſt allow, that FAITH is neceſſary for thoſe who ASK; and how can Men be ſaid to have the NECESSARY FAITH, who form to themſelves notions of God's HOLY SPI⯑RIT, which are totally inconſiſtent with the DIVINE NATURE?

[208]How can we conceive that ‘the SPI⯑RIT OF GLORY and OF GOD (1 Pet. iv. 14.)’ ‘reſteth upon’ thoſe who wick⯑edly eſteem that glorious and ‘Eternal Spirit (Heb. ix. 14.)’ no otherwiſe than as a created Being, and a mere mi⯑niſtering Spirit; and who refuſe to join in that excellent Form of Prayer, the Litany of the Church of England, merely becauſe THE HOLY GHOST is, therein, addreſſed AS GOD? Is not this to do "deſpite unto THE SPIRIT of Grace? (Heb. x. 29.)

Theſe Men may pray for the HOLY SPIRIT, indeed; but, with ſuch erroneous conceptions of that GLORIOUS GIFT, it is impoſſible that they ſhould RECEIVE that eternal "SPIRIT OF TRUTH," till they have ſincerely repented of their horrid blaſphemies, and humbled their own haughty Spirits to receive the plain information of the Scriptures; for if our [209] Belief in the HOLY TRINITY were ſet aſide, the greateſt part of thoſe ſacred Writings would become utterly unin⯑telligible to us; becauſe they muſt, in that caſe, ſeem to contain the groſſeſt contradictions, as there are paſſages, which, without that neceſſary doctrine, would ſurely appear inconſiſtent with grammar and common ſenſe! The doc⯑trine of the HOLY TRINITY is ex⯑preſſed in the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England in ſuch guarded terms, as cannot eaſily be miſconſtrued and perverted: and though a certain ſet of men may pretend to found their ob⯑jections to the Church of England on ſome other Articles of leſs moment, yet I am thoroughly perſuaded, that the ſaid guarded Terms, concerning that ONE ne⯑ceſſary Doctrine, are the principal cauſes of offence to many of thoſe miſtaken Clergymen, who lately petitioned Parlia⯑ment that they might be exempted from [210] Subſcription ⁽⁸⁰⁾ to the Articles of the Church of England. But as a right Faith [211] muſt ſeal and authenticate our claims to the ineſtimable privileges and immuni⯑ties of the Goſpel, and as the true Dignity of Human Nature cannot be attained without the Divine Aſſiſtance, and the Inſpiration of God's Holy Spirit, where⯑by Men are made partakers (as I have already ſhewn) of the Divine Nature, ſome knowledge of the latter (ſo far as the Almighty hath been pleaſed to reveal himſelf to us) is abſolutely neceſſary for [212] thoſe Perſons who deſire to be acquaint⯑ed with the Law of Nature, and ‘the Principles of Action in Man:’ and therefore ſome obſervations relating to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, are by no means foreign to the ſubject and in⯑tention of this Tract. But it is an awful myſtery, that muſt be received more by Faith in what God has been pleaſed to reveal to us, than by Human Comprehen⯑ſion. The finite underſtanding of the NA⯑TURAL MAN ⁽⁸¹⁾ cannot, in this life, conceive an adequate idea of that glo⯑rious and eternal BEING, which in every attribute is infinite perfection! Nay, even if we had a perfect Knowledge of that which is now ſo far above us, yet no language could ſupply words, no rheto⯑rical figures of compariſon could be found to expreſs that Knowledge! and it would, therefore, remain unuttered, in theſe lower [213] Regions, like thoſe "unſpeakable Words" which were heard by the Apoſtle Paul when he was "caught up into Paradiſe!" 2 Cor. xii. 4. For—‘To whom will ye liken God? (ſaid Iſai. xl. 18.)’ ‘or what Like⯑neſs will ye compare unto him?’

But a time will come, when we ſhall know, even as we are known ⁽⁸²⁾. This expreſſion to KNOW, even as we are KNOWN, implies a perfect Knowledge of that eternal Being, which is infinite in Knowledge, in Power, in Majeſty, in Glory, &c.—And therefore a more ex⯑alted State of Happineſs cannot be con⯑ceived, than that which a perfect Know⯑ledge of GOD muſt afford!—A Happineſs to be expected only in Heaven, when Human Nature ſhall have put on In⯑corruption and Immortality ⁽⁸³⁾. But [214] though we can neither attain, in this life, a perfect Knowledge of God, nor that perfect Happineſs which reſults from it, yet it is our duty to improve and cultivate our limited Knowledge concern⯑ing the Divine Nature, as far as God has been pleaſed to reveal himſelf to us in the Scriptures; for so FAR the Know⯑ledge is undoubtedly neceſſary to MAN, even in this life, or otherwiſe, we may be aſſured, the Revelation would not have been made, in the Scriptures, ‘by Inſpiration of God’ ⁽⁸⁴⁾, who cannot act in vain! Let us therefore earneſtly deſire to partake of that neceſſary Know⯑ledge, and let us look into the evidences of it with the moſt awful reverence, [215] and the moſt humble ſubmiſſion of our FAITH to the Word of GOD; leſt through any improper conception of the Divine Nature, we ſhould unhappily fall under a ſimilar condemnation to that of Eli⯑phaz, and his two friends, who viſited Job—‘My Wrath’ (ſaid JEHOVAH) ‘is kindled againſt thee, and againſt thy two friends: for ye have not ſpoken of me’ (the thing that is) ‘right, &c. (Job xlii. 7.)’

When Moſes deſired to ſee the Glory of JEHOVAH (ſaying, ‘I beſeech thee ſhew me THY GLORY’) he was anſwered by the Almighty, ‘Thou canſt not ſee my Face: for there ſhall no Man ſee me and live. (Exod. xxxiii. 18.20.)’ We muſt therefore limit our ideas of thoſe appearances under which God re⯑vealed himſelf to the Patriarchs, and to Moſes;—for the Goſpel expreſſly in⯑forms us, that ‘no Man hath ſeen God at any time’ (but the Evangeliſt im⯑mediately [216] adds with reſpect to the Meſ⯑ſiah) ‘the only begotten Son, which IS IN THE BOSOM OF THE FATHER, he hath declared.’ ( [...]) That is, hath clearly declared or ſhewn the Father, or, as Mr. Leigh has remarked upon the Word in his Critica Sacra—id eſt (ſays he) Nobis ad ejus veram cognitio⯑nem eruendam Dux et Auctor fuit, &c.

This is further explained by the de⯑claration of our Lord himſelf—‘He that hath SEEN me (ſaid our Lord) hath SEEN the Father; &c. (1 John xiv. 9.)’ ‘Believe me, that I am in the Fa⯑ther, and the Father in me ⁽⁸⁵⁾. (ib. ver. 11.)’ Not that any Man hath SEEN the eternal Being (or JEHOVAH) I mean the Divine Nature ⁽⁸⁶⁾, in which the [217] Son of Man (even while ON EARTH) was and is in the Boſom of the Father, (and in which now that he is aſcended into Heaven) he is always with his Church ON EARTH, though he ‘ſat down’ ( [...], which plainly implies a perſonal Reſidence) ‘on the Right Hand of the Majeſty on High; (Heb. i. 3.)’—for "GOD is a Spirit," and cannot be ſeen by Human Eyes ⁽⁸⁶⁾, ‘though he be not far from every one of us. For in him we live, and move, and have our being. (Acts xvii. 27, 28.)’ But Chriſt being ‘the Image of the IN⯑VISIBLE [218] GOD ⁽⁸⁷⁾, in whom all Ful⯑neſs dwelleth, (Coloſſ. i. 15—19.)’ ‘for in him dwelleth all the Fulneſs of [219] the GODHEAD BODILY, [...], or perſonally! (Coloſſ. ii. 9.)’ ‘Who being the Brightneſs of his Glory, and expreſs Image of his’ (that is, God's ⁽⁸⁸⁾ Perſon ( [...]) ‘and upholding all Things by the Word of his Power, (Hebr. i. 3.)’ in him [220] alone, therefore, ‘who is the Image of God, (2 Cor. iv. 4.)’ can GOD be ſeen! and in him alone could be fulfilled that ancient Promiſe to the Jewiſh Na⯑tion, that they ſhould SEE THEIR GOD: —‘O Zion, that bringeſt good Tidings, get thee up into the high Mountain: O Jeruſalem, that bringeſt good Tidings, lift up thy Voice with Strength: lift (it) up, be not afraid; SAY UNTO THE CITIES OF JUDAH, BEHOLD YOUR GOD! Iſaiah xl. 9.’ Com⯑pare this with the Context in the ſame Chapter. The Divine Perſon, whom "THE CITIES OF JUDAH" are here called upon to BEHOLD, was afterwards (agreeable to this prophecy) particularly pointed out by John the Baptiſt, to "the Cities of Judah ⁽⁸⁹⁾, and the Office of that faithful Harbinger, or [221] Forerunner, in proclaiming the Advent as well as the Dignity of the Divine Perſon, that was ‘to be ſeen, or made manifeſt to Iſrael,’ is as diſtinctly fore⯑told in the 3d and 5th Verſes of the ſame Chapter. ‘The Voice of him that crieth in THE WILDERNESS’ (for the Wilderneſs was the appointed Place of John's Miniſtry) ‘Prepare ye the Way of the LORD’ ( [...] "the Way of JEHOVAH") ‘make ſtraight in THE DESERT’ (once more alluding to the Place wherein the Meſſiah was firſt pro⯑claimed [222] by his inſpired Harbinger) ‘a Highway for OUR GOD!’ And again, ‘the Glory of THE LORD’ (i. e. "the Glory of JEHOVAH," [...]) ‘ſhall be revealed, and ALL FLESH SHALL SEE (it) TOGETHER,’ &c. This latter Sentence was fulfilled only in part, when "the Voice in the Wilderneſs" pro⯑claimed the Meſſiah, ſaying, ‘Behold the Lamb of God,’ &c.—for though Jeruſalem, "and the Cities of Judah," then beheld their GOD in the Perſon of the Son of God ⁽⁹⁰⁾, and ſaw the Glory ⁽⁹¹⁾ of Jehovah, that was promiſed to be revealed, without perceiving it, agree⯑able [223]to another Prophecy of Iſaiah (‘in SEEING ye ſhall SEE, and ſhall not PERCEIVE ⁽⁹²⁾, chap. vi. 9.) yet all Fleſh did not then SEE him together!’ Suc⯑ceeding Generations, indeed, may be ſaid to ſee, and alſo to perceive the Glory of Je⯑hovah, that is, with the Eye of Faith in the ſcriptures: but the prophecy will moſt certainly be literally and univerſally fulfilled AT THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, when ‘ALL THE TRIBES OF THE EARTH ſhall SEE THE SON OF MAN coming in the Clouds of Heaven, with Power and GREAT GLORY. (Matt. xxiv. 30.)’ For then "THE GLORY OF JEHOVAH" [224] will be ſo revealed, that ‘ALL FLESH SHALL SEE (it) TOGETHER,’ even thoſe Men ſhall ſee, that now preſume to deny the Divine Nature of our Redeemer, and refuſe to worſhip him; for ‘BEHOLD, he cometh with the Clouds; and EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM, and they (alſo) which pierced him. Rev. i. 7.’ ‘This is he’ (ſaid the learned Biſhop Chan⯑dler, ſpeaking of the Divine WORD ⁽⁹³⁾, which was in the Beginning with God, and was God, and made all Things) ‘who in time’ (ſays he) ‘was made Fleſh, and is called JESUS ⁽⁹⁴⁾, and [225] CHRIST, as he is indeed the Foun⯑tain of Life and Light to every Being [226] that partakes of either, &c. (Serm. before the King in 1718. p. 21.)’ ‘Some⯑times he is indeed treated’ (ſays the ſame learned Writer, p. 15.) ‘as an Angel, or Meſſenger; but even then is ſo diſtinguiſhed from all other Angels, in reſpect of Majeſty, Autority, and Power, or dignify'd with the incom⯑municable Title of JEHOVA, that they had not the leaſt Thought of his being a meer Angel,’ &c.

The Eternal WORD, though he was in the Beginning with GOD, and was GOD, yet under the Diſpenſation of the Goſpel (that he might reſtore the loſt [227] Dignity of fallen Man) became the Angel, or MESSENGER of GOD; that is, of Jehovah Tſabaouth, the Lord of Hoſts. For He was—‘the Meſſenger of the Covenant,’ foretold by the Prophet Malachi, and being alſo Lord of Hoſts him⯑ſelf, he ſent another Meſſenger before his Face to prepare his Way—"BEHOLD, I" (that is, I JEHOVAH TSABAOUTH, or Lord of Hoſts, ſee the End of the Verſe) "will ſend MY MESSENGER" (that is, John the Baptiſt ⁽⁹⁴⁾) ‘and he ſhall prepare the Way before me’ (that is, before the Divine WORD, which, being included in the Unity of JEHOVAH, then ſpoke to the Jews under the Title of LORD OF HOSTS) "and THE LORD" ( [...] THE ADOUN ⁽⁹⁵⁾, or ſupreme [228] Lord) "whom ye ſeek" (whom the Jews were taught by their Prophets to expect) ‘ſhall ſuddenly come to HIS ⁽⁹⁶⁾ Temple, even THE MESSENGER’ (or Angel, [...] Malach, from whence the Prophet Ma⯑lachi himſelf was alſo named) ‘OF THE COVENANT, whom ye delight in: Behold, he ſhall come, ſaith the LORD OF HOSTS. Malachi iii. 1.’

Thus it appears, that the Meſſenger (whom our Lord himſelf declared to be John the Baptiſt) was to be ſent to prepare the Way before JEHOVAH OF [229] HOSTS, the ſame Divine Being who SPOKE by the Prophet, ‘Behold, I will ſend MY Meſſenger, and he ſhall prepare the Way before ME.’ But our Lord himſelf, in referring to this Paſſage, varies a little from the Original, by making a Diſtinction of Perſons between the Lord (or Jehovah of Hoſts) who ſpoke, and the Divine Perſon before whom the Meſſenger was to prepare the Way—‘Behold, I ſend MY Meſſenger before THY Face, which ſhall prepare THY Way before THEE. Matt. xi. 10.’ This Variation from the firſt to the ſe⯑cond Perſon, from my to thy, and from me to thee, proves that Chriſt (for it cannot be applied to any other but Chriſt and Jehovah) was indeed the Perſon before whom the Meſſenger, John, was to prepare the Way; and the original Text (which undoubtedly is alſo a true Reading in this Place, as it perfectly correſponds with all the ancient Ver⯑ſions) [230] proves at the ſame time, that the Way was to be prepared for Jehovah, who ſaid, Behold, I will ſend MY Meſ⯑ſenger, and he ſhall prepare the Way before ME; and conſequently it appears, by comparing both Texts, that CHRIST is included in the Eternal Being JE⯑HOVAH. The Socinians endeavour to evade this Teſtimony of the Scripture concerning the Divine Nature of the Meſſiah, by ſuppoſing that he is called Jehovah only in a relative Senſe, as being the Prophet, or Ambaſſador of JEHOVAH, the Repreſentative being named for the Prin⯑cipal. In like manner, for Inſtance (ſay they) as he that deſpiſeth Chriſt's Meſſen⯑gers, is ſaid to deſpiſe Chriſt himſelf; and he that deſpiſeth him, deſpiſeth alſo him that ſent him. Luke x. 16. And he that lied to the Apoſtles, lied to God. Acts v. 4.

In theſe and ſuch like Paſſages, in⯑deed, the relative Senſe is manifeſt; and [231] it may alſo, in a certain degree, be ad⯑mitted in the Conſtruction of the Text in queſtion, but yet not ſo as to favour the Socinian Argument in the leaſt re⯑ſpect whatſoever.

The Prophecy, for inſtance, concern⯑ing the Meſſenger therein mentioned (of whom JEHOVAH ſaid,—"he ſhall pre⯑pare the Way before ME) was fulfilled in the Perſon of John the Baptiſt, as our Lord himſelf declared (ſee Note in p. 227.); and therefore, according to the Socinian Method of Argument, it might indeed be ſaid of thoſe worldly Men, who deſpiſed that extraordinary Meſ⯑ſenger of Jehovah, and neglected the Doctrine of Repentance, which he en⯑forced; that they, in ſo doing, deſpiſed the Lord Jehovah, by whom this Meſ⯑ſenger was ſent; and, on the other hand, thoſe Jews, who readily received John's Doctrine of Repentance, and attended [232] diligently to his Inſtructions, may, in the like relative Senſe, be ſaid to honour Jehovah, by paying due Reſpect to his Meſſenger. But a mere relative Honour, ſuch as might lawfully be given to the Meſſenger of Jehovah, will bear no Com⯑pariſon with the Honour that is due to Jehovah himſelf:—the latter muſt be ſupream Honour and Worſhip, whereas the former amounts only to Reſpect, At⯑tention, and good Offices, for whatever is more than theſe muſt lead to Idolatry; ſo that the Compariſon can be carried no farther.

A Meſſenger of Jehovah cannot, there⯑fore, merely as ſuch, be allowed the Name of JEHOVAH, becauſe this would entitle him alſo to the Honour that is due to JEHOVAH alone; ſo that when Jeho⯑vah ſaid, ‘MY Meſſenger’—‘he ſhall prepare the Way BEFORE ME,’ he muſt mean (if Language has any Uſe) [233] that the Meſſenger was to prepare the Way for the Advent of Jehovah himſelf, who could not be ſaid to come in the Perſon of any Meſſenger, or Ambaſſador whatſoever, except in one of the Divine Perſons that are manifeſtly included in the ſame Eternal BEING, and conſe⯑quently are entitled to the Honour and Worſhip, as well as to the Name, of JE⯑HOVAH! This glorious Title JEHOVAH is no where in Scripture attributed to any Perſon whatever, that is not thus included in the Unity of the Godhead, neither can it be without Blaſphemy (ſo that the Socinian Argument muſt fall to the Ground) becauſe it is the diſtin⯑guiſhing Title of the ſupreme Divine Nature!—‘Thou, whoſe Name alone (is) JEHOVA (art) the moſt High over all the Earth. Pſal. lxxxiii. 18.’ or it ſhould rather be rendered, as we find it in the old Engliſh Verſions—Thou whoſe [234] Name is JEHOVAH, art ONLY (or alone) the moſt High, &c.

This Diviſion of the Sentence is agree⯑able to all the ancient Verſions, except the Syriac; but, in either way of tran⯑ſlating, the Name of JEHOVAH is ma⯑nifeſtly given as the diſtinguiſhing Title of the ſupreme GOD; and cannot therefore be attributed to any Perſon whatever, that is not truly God, becauſe the ſaid Diſtinction would be deſtroyed, if the Name was ever uſed merely in that rela⯑tive Senſe for which the Socinians con⯑tend: Proper Names, indeed, were fre⯑quently formed or compounded with that Holy Name, by having it prefixed, or poſtfixed, to ſome other Word, ap⯑parently with an Intention to diſtinguiſh the Servants of JEHOVAH ⁽⁹⁷⁾; but the [235] peculiar and incommunicable Name itſelf has never been mentioned by any of the Sacred Writers in ſuch a manner, as to refer us either in direct Terms, or by neceſſary Implication, to any other Perſons whatſoever, beſides thoſe of the Holy Trinity; and, on the other hand, with reſpect to Chriſt, it is not only the Name of JEHOVAH that is re⯑ferred to him by the neceſſary Inter⯑pretation of ſeveral inconteſtable Paſ⯑ſages of Scripture; but alſo the Power ⁽⁹⁸⁾, the Honour ⁽⁹⁹⁾, and the Glory [236] of Jehovah ⁽¹⁰⁰⁾: ſo that the Socinian Evaſion before-mentioned is as vain as it is wicked, whenever it is applied to thoſe Paſſages of Scripture wherein the Name of Jehovah is attributed to that Divine Perſon, ‘in whom dwelleth all the Fullneſs of the Godhead, bodily! Coloſſ. ii. 9.’

[...] JEHOVAH is the proper and eſ⯑ſential Name of ALMIGHTY GOD, be⯑cauſe it, in ſome degree, expreſſes his Eternal Being or Exiſtence, being a com⯑pound Word, including different Tenſes or Times of the Hebrew Verb [...] TO BE, or rather (as it is the Preterperfect Tenſe, ſignifying HE WAS; from whence is formed [...], the Participle as well as [237] Preſent Tenſe, ſignifying, according to Buxtorf's Concordance (though, in his Lexicon, he renders it alſo FUIT) ‘ens, es, eſt;’ being, thou art, he is; to which the prefixed [...], the true characteriſtic Let⯑ter of the Future Tenſe (ſhall or will be), is alſo added to form the Word [...] JE⯑HOVAH; ſo that this myſterious and awful Name ſeems to expreſs ALL TIME, or ETERNITY; as if, for in⯑ſtance, a Word was to be compounded of three different Tenſes of the Latin Word eſſe, to be, viz. eſt, fuit, erit (he is,—he was,—he ſhall be) yet ſo as to include the Senſe of all three, and con⯑ſequently to denominate in one ſingle Word an Eternal BEING, that ever did, and ever will, EXIST.—And ſuch ſeems to be the Interpretation of the glorious Name JEHOVAH, according to the Opi⯑nion of the moſt learned in the Hebrew Tongue, viz. "ENS, EXISTENS AB ETERNO ET IN ETERNUM," A BEING [238] exiſting from all Eternity and for ever. This is the Senſe which the learned Buxtorf has quoted in his Hebrew Lexi⯑con from the famous Jewiſh Rabbin Aben Ezra, and he cites alſo the Au⯑thority of ſeveral others of the moſt eminent Jews much to the ſame Pur⯑poſe ⁽¹⁰¹⁾. But, as the Words of Holy Scripture are beſt interpreted by Holy [239] Scripture, he refers us at the ſame time to a Text in the Revelations, wherein the Apoſtle John addreſſes the Seven Churches of Aſia in the NAME OF GOD, which is there clearly expreſſed in the ſame Senſe that the Jews (as I have before remarked) have attributed to the Hebrew Name JEHOVAH, and ſeems therefore to be the true Interpretation of it.—"Grace be unto you, and peace from him, which IS, and which WAS, and which IS TO COME, [...]. Rev. i. 4. In like manner the four Beaſts, or rather living Animals [...] (which in the Revelations repreſent the Hoſts or Armies of Iſrael, by the Figures of thoſe Animals which were borne on the Standards of the four principal Tribes in their En⯑campments round the Tabernacle) ‘reſt not Day and Night, ſaying, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty; which WAS, and IS, and IS TO COME, [...]. Rev. iv. 8. So alſo [240] the four and twenty Elders, which ſat before God on their Seats, fell upon their Faces and worſhipped God, ſaying, We give Thanks to thee, O LORD GOD AL⯑MIGHTY, which ART, and WAST, and (WILT BE, or) ART TO COME,’ &c. [...]. Rev. xi. 16, 17.

This Eternal BEING, which has been pleaſed to reveal himſelf to us in ſuch clear and comprehenſive terms, is the ſame Almighty JEHOVAH that is men⯑tioned in Geneſis (xiv. 22.) in the higheſt terms of Power and Glory— ‘the Lord’ (in the original JEHOVAH) ‘the moſt high God, the Poſſeſſor of Hea⯑ven and Earth.’ The ſame Eternal BEING, or JEHOVAH, is alſo called "JEHOVAH, GOD OF ISRAEL," [...] in Exod. xxxii. 27. Joſhua vii. 19. xiii. 33. xxii. 24. Judges xi. 23, &c. He is alſo called ‘JEHOVAH, the GOD OF GODS,’ ( [...]) [241] in Joſhua xxii. 22. where we find this glorious title twice expreſſed in the ſame ſentence: ‘The LORD (or JEHOVAH) God of Gods; THE LORD God of Gods, he knoweth,’ &c. And therefore, as the LORD, or JEHOVAH, mentioned in theſe ſeveral texts, is undoubtedly THE SU⯑PREME GOD, we are naturally led to attribute the ſame Divine Excellence, and ſupreme Dignity, to the glorious name JEHOVAH, wherever it occurs in other parts of Scripture, becauſe there is but ONE JEHOVAH! "Hear, O Iſrael!— [...] —"The Lord," (or Jehovah) "our God (is) ONE LORD" (viz. ONE JEHOVAH— [...] ‘and thou ſhalt love JEHOVAH with all thine heart, and with all thy ſoul, and with all thy might, &c. (Deut. vi. 4, 5.)’ Thus the Unity of God is proved to be an indiſpenſable article of our Faith! And yet we are equally bound to acknow⯑ledge, that Three Divine Perſons are [242] comprehended in that One, Almighty and Eternal BEING, or JEHOVAH!— becauſe this glorious name is clearly applied, in the Holy Scriptures (even in thoſe of the Old Teſtament) to as many diſtinct Perſons; who are, therefore, to be eſteemed equal, or ONE, with the ſupreme God, as ‘Jehovah our God (is) ONE JEHOVAH! Deut. vi. 4.’

For though we are bound to acknow⯑ledge a manifeſt ſubordination with re⯑ſpect to the merciful and gracious OF⯑FICES of Redemption and Sanctification, whereby Two of the Divine Perſons are particularly diſtinguiſhed in Scripture, yet we are obliged, at the ſame time, to believe, that the ſeveral Divine Perſons are of One and the ſame Eternal and Almighty EXISTENCE with reſpect to that incomprehenſible BEING, or Divine Nature, wherein their Unity conſiſts; becauſe the contrary Doctrines of thoſe [243] Men, who deny that OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and THE HOLY GHOST, par⯑take of the ſame Divine Nature with THE FATHER, do manifeſtly and ne⯑ceſſarily include the ſuppoſition of a ſuperior and inferior order of DIVINE EX⯑ISTENCE (for that all the Three Perſons have Divine Exiſtence and Divine Attri⯑butes cannot be denied, without ſetting aſide the whole tenour of the Holy Scriptures) which EXISTENCE could not, without abſurdity, be called one and the ſame, but muſt neceſſarily be eſteemed ſeveral, or ſeparate and different, if the leaſt degree of Inequality with reſpect to the Divine Nature be ad⯑mitted; and therefore ſuch Doctrines are totally inconſiſtent with our indiſpenſable Belief in the Unity of God, whatſoever thoſe miſtaken people, who call them⯑ſelves Unitarians, may think!

But a due regard to theſe two neceſſary diſtinctions, viz. the Equality and Unity [244] (as there is but ONE GOD) of the THREE Perſons with reſpect to their Divine Nature, and the revealed ſubordi⯑nation of TWO of them with reſpect to the merciful and gracious OFFICES of Redemption and Sanctification, whereby they are perſonally diſtinguiſhed and made known to us in Scripture;—a due regard to theſe two neceſſary diſtinctions (I ſay) and to the proper application of the ſeveral texts by which both are reſpec⯑tively proved, will clearly demonſtrate (at leaſt to all Men who ſincerely aſk and ſeek the knowledge of Truth, as Chriſt has commanded) that the Doctrine of the Trinity, as received by THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, is ſtrictly con⯑ſiſtent with the indiſpenſable doctrine of Scripture before-mentioned concern⯑ing the Unity of God.

That there are Three diſtinct Perſons in that One ETERNAL BEING, or JE⯑HOVAH, is clearly revealed in Scripture; [245] for each Perſon is occaſionally mentioned under that diſtinguiſhing and peculiar Name of the Supreme God.

And firſt, with reſpect to the firſt Divine Perſon in the Holy Trinity.— In the 42d chapter of Iſaiah, the Divine Perſon, whom the Prophet repreſents in the 6th verſe, as ſpeaking in the name of Jehovah, is clearly diſtinguiſhed from the MESSIAH and HOLY SPIRIT; and though it may ſeem a needleſs work to produce any proofs that the Almighty Father, ‘THE GOD and FATHER of our Lord JESUS CHRIST ⁽¹⁰²⁾,’ is truly JEHOVAH (which no Man will deny) yet I propoſe to recite ſome parts of this chapter, in order to prove the [246] clear diſtinction of Perſons and their Offices, as revealed even in the Old Teſtament.—‘Thus ſaith GOD JEHO⯑VAH, he that created the heavens, and ſtretched them out; he that ſpread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and Spirit to them that walk therein: I JEHOVAH have called THEE’ (apparently meaning the MES⯑SIAH) ‘in righteouſneſs, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, and for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the priſoners from the priſon, (and) them that ſit in darkneſs out of the priſon-houſe. I AM JEHOVAH; that (is) MY NAME: and MY GLORY WILL I NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER, &c. Iſai. xlii. 5—8.’ Theſe words of JEHOVAH are manifeſtly addreſſed to the MESSIAH, as a diſtinct Perſon, in his mediatorial Office of Redeemer; and [247] the Divine Perſon, who thus addreſſes the Meſſiah, is manifeſtly the ſame that ſpeaks in the firſt verſe of the ſame chapter, and mentions both THE MES⯑SIAH and the HOLY SPIRIT in that one ſentence as diſtinct PERSONS FROM HIM⯑SELF, and under different and diſtinct characters or offices of the Chriſtian Diſ⯑penſation, ſuitable to the nature of that extraordinary prophecy concerning the future Redemption of Mankind! ‘Be⯑hold, MY SERVANT,’ (apparently meaning the MESSIAH in his ſtate of humiliation as SON OF MAN) ‘whom I uphold; mine Elect (in whom) my Soul delighteth; I have put MY SPIRIT upon HIM:’ (Here the Three Perſons are diſtinctly expreſſed) ‘He ſhall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles! He ſhall not cry, not lift up, nor cauſe his voice to be heard in the ſtreet. A bruiſed reed ſhall he not break, &c. Iſai. xlii. 1—3.’ Thus we find the Office of THE [248] MESSIAH particularly deſcribed in this chapter, as well as the deſcent of THE HOLY SPIRIT upon HIM: and this is expreſſly foretold by the Lord JEHOVAH, who ſpeaks of himſelf diſtinctly from the other two; ſo that the diſtinction of Per⯑ſons is hereby clearly manifeſted.

Secondly, The glorious Name of the ſupreme God JEHOVAH, is plainly attri⯑buted, in the 40th chapter of Iſaiah, to the Second Perſon, the Divine Meſſiah, in his Paſtoral Office, as ‘Shepherd of Iſrael.’

The peculiar Harbinger or Forerunner of the Meſſiah is deſcribed and foretold in the third verſe, as the Forerunner alſo of JEHOVAH—‘The voice of him that crieth in the wilderneſs, Prepare ye the WAY of the LORD’ ( [...] THE WAY OF JEHOVAH) ‘make ſtraight in the deſert a HIGHWAY for OUR GOD. (3d verſe).’

[249]And John the Baptiſt, in whom alone that prophecy could be fulfilled (as I have ſhewn more particularly in my Tract on Prophecy ⁽¹⁰³⁾) declared the identity of the Divine Perſon whom he preceded in the world, and whoſe WAY he was SENT TO PREPARE, ſaying,— ‘He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whoſe ſhoes I am not worthy to bear: He ſhall baptize you with the HOLY GHOST, and with Fire. Matt. iii. 11.’ — And afterwards, when the Prieſts and Levites (thoſe that were ſent from Jeruſalem to aſk him, ‘Who art thou’) queſtioned him, ſaying, ‘Why baptizeſt thou then, if thou be not that CHRIST, nor ELIAS, neither that PROPHET? John anſwered them, ſay⯑ing, I baptize with water: BUT THERE STANDETH ONE AMONG YOU, whom ye know not; HE IT IS, WHO, COMING AFTER ME, is preferred before me, [250] whoſe ſhoes latchet I am not worthy to unlooſe. &c. John i. 19—27.’ And "the next day" he bore full and expreſs teſtimony to the identity of the Divine Perſon that came after him, whoſe WAY HE PREPARED—‘John ſeeth JESUS coming unto him, and ſaith—BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD, which taketh away the ſin of the world. THIS is HE of whom I ſaid, AFTER ME COMETH a MAN, which is preferred before me; FOR HE WAS BEFORE ME. And I knew him not: but that he ſhould be MADE MANIFEST to ISRAEL, therefore I am come baptizing with water. And John bare record, ſaying, I ſaw THE SPIRIT DESCENDING FROM HEAVEN like a dove, and IT abode upon HIM. And I knew him not: but HE that ſent me to baptize with water, THE SAME ſaid unto me’ (now mark again the clear declaration of Two Divine Perſons, ſeparate and diſtinct from the Divine Being now repreſented [251] as ſpeaking) ‘UPON WHOM thou (John) ſhalt ſee THE SPIRIT deſcending and remaining on HIM, the ſame is HE which baptizeth with THE HOLY GHOST. And I ſaw’ (ſaid John) ‘and bare record that THIS is the SON OF GOD. Again, the next day after, John ſtood, and two of his diſciples; and’ (bore the like teſtimony to the Divine Perſon, WHOSE WAY he was ſent TO PREPARE; for) ‘looking upon JESUS as he walked, he ſaith— BEHOLD THE LAMB OF GOD! John i. 29—36.’ Thus John declared himſelf to be the peculiar, Har⯑binger (as I have ſaid) of the SON OF GOD; ſo that the name of JEHOVAH (whoſe WAY, in the prophecy, he is ex⯑preſſly ſaid to prepare) muſt neceſſarily be attributed to the Meſſiah, to whom after⯑wards this long expected preceding Meſſen⯑ger did perſonally apply the prophecy.

‘THE VOICE OF HIM that crieth in the wilderneſs, Prepare ye THE WAY OF JEHOVAH, make ſtraight in the de⯑ſart [252] a highway for OUR GOD, (Iſai. xl. 3.)’ And the Divine Perſon, for whom THE WAY was to be thus pre⯑pared, is ſo diſtinctly deſcribed by his Advent, and Paſtoral Office, in the 9th, 10th, and 11th verſes of this chapter, that the proper application of the glo⯑rious titles therein mentioned, cannot be miſtaken, at leaſt by thoſe who ſin⯑cerely ſeek after truth! ‘O Zion, that bringeſt good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain: O Jeruſalem, that bringeſt good tidings, lift up thy voice with ſtrength: lift (it) up, be not afraid; ſay unto the cities of Judah,— BEHOLD YOUR GOD!’ To the fulfill⯑ing of which in Chriſt the Apoſtle Paul (as I have already ſhewn) bears ample teſtimony, ſaying, ‘GOD is as manifeſt in the fleſh,’ &c. ⁽¹⁰⁴⁾. And again, ‘For [253] in him dwelleth all the fulneſs of the Godhead bodily. Coloſſ. ii. 9.’ So the [254] Apoſtle John, "The WORD was GOD," &c. "All things were made by him," &c. [255] ‘And the WORD was made FLESH, and dwelt among us, and we BEHELD HIS [256] GLORY, the GLORY, as of the only be⯑gotten of the Father, full of grace and [257] truth. John i. 1—14.’ See notes in p. 222—224. But to return to the Prophet.

‘Behold’ (ſaid he) ‘the LORD GOD’ (that is, ADONI JEHOVAH, or the Lord Jehovah) ‘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’ (the peculiar Office of the Meſſiah, who himſelf declared, ‘I am the GOOD SHEPHERD. The GOOD SHEPHERD giveth his life for his ſheep,’ &c. John x. 11.) "HE" (ſaid the Prophet) ‘ſhall ga⯑ther the Lambs with his arm, and carry (them) in his boſom, (and) ſhall gently lead thoſe that are with young. (Iſai. xl. 3—11.)’ It is ſurely the REWARD and WORK of the MESSIAH in his Paſ⯑toral Office, that are here ſo diſtinctly foretold; and therefore the Adjective HIS, and the Perſonal Pronoun HIM (both expreſſed by [...] in the Original, [258] and ſo often repeated in theſe verſes) as alſo the Perſonal Pronouns HIM and HE muſt neceſſarily be referred, by the plaineſt rules of grammar, to the Per⯑ſonal Nouns (THE LORD GOD, or ADO⯑NI JEHOVAH) which immediately pre⯑cede them, and by which the Holy Spirit has marked the ſupreme or equal Divi⯑nity of the Meſſiah with the Father, and that he is really JEHOVAH and GOD beyond all poſſibility of contradiction!

Before the Incarnation of the Divine Logos, or WORD OF GOD (that is, be⯑fore he ‘was MADE FLESH, and dwelt among us John i. 14.’) God re⯑vealed himſelf to the children of Iſrael, not only by the name of [...] (JEHOVAH, ſignifying Eternal Exiſtence, by including the characteriſtical letters of the Preſent, Preterite, and Future Tenſes, as I have already ſhewn) but alſo by the name of [...] A-hi-ah, which is the ſame verb of Being or Exiſtence, with the ſign only [259] of the Future Tenſe, ſignifying, I WILL BE ⁽¹⁰⁵⁾: and when the Son of God was perſonally preſent on earth, in our HUMAN NATURE, as a Deſcendant of Abraham, he aſſerted his pre-exiſtent ſtate, by giving himſelf a ſimilar title of Eternal Exiſtence, though in a diffe⯑rent Tenſe; for he uſed the Preſent Tenſe alone, without any characteriſtical Letter of the Future, [...], I AM, inſtead of, I WILL BE (as the promiſes reſpecting his own Perſon were accompliſhed by [260] his PRESENCE, which, as he himſelf alſo promiſed, will continue to the end of the world ⁽¹⁰⁶⁾ ‘Before Abraham was,’ (ſaid our Lord) ‘I AM.’— (John viii. 58.) This expreſſion (if the occaſion of its being made be duly con⯑conſidered) cannot be made to accord properly with its context in any other ſenſe than as a reference to Chriſt's Eternal Exiſtence; and, as ſuch, it ma⯑nifeſtly correſponds with the meaning of the glorious Name JEHOVAH.

[261]The purpoſe of our Lord's argument was, certainly, to declare his pre-exiſtent State of Glory, in anſwer to the Jews, who ſaid—‘Art thou greater than our Father Abraham, which is dead? &c. (John viii. 53.)’—‘Thou art not yet fifty years old, and haſt thou ſeen Abraham?’ So that his immediate anſwer—‘Before Abraham WAS, I AM,’ muſt neceſ⯑ſarily be underſtood in the ſenſe which I have mentioned.

He had, a little time before, told the Jews, who diſputed with him, ‘I pro⯑ceeded forth’ (ſaid he) ‘and came from God. (v. 42.)’ The expreſſion in the original Greek has a much deeper meaning; it is not merely "from God," as in the common Engliſh tranſlation; but out of God, EK [...] — "OUT of GOD, I PROCEEDED FORTH," &c. which is much more expreſſive of that proceſſion, which is commonly called the Eternal Generation of the SON, —of that Divine Perſon, who ‘is in [262] the Boſom of the Father (John i. 18.)’ and ‘whoſe GOINGS FORTH (have been) from of old, from everlaſting. Micah v. 2.’ Had not theſe Jewiſh unbelievers been blinded by their own wickedneſs, and worldly deſires, they would have underſtood by the Prophets, that their Meſſiah, though he was to be a Deſcen⯑dant of Abraham, according to the pro⯑miſes, was yet to be one who had ETERNAL EXISTENCE, and conſe⯑quently muſt be entitled to the in⯑communicable name of Eternal Exiſtence, JEHOVAH; for he, ‘whoſe goings forth (have been) from of old, from ever⯑laſting,’ was the ſame of whom the Prophet Micah ſaith, that he ſhould come out of BETHLEHEM EPHRATAH, "to be Ruler in Iſrael," viz. that Ruler, of whom the ſame Prophet foretold, ‘that they ſhould ſmite the JUDGE OF ISRAEL with a rod upon the cheek.’ Compare the firſt and ſecond verſes of this chapter. And in the fourth verſe [263] the name of Jehovah is manifeſtly attri⯑buted to the ſame Divine Perſon.— ‘And he ſhall ſtand and feed’ (that is, "as a Shepherd," compare with Iſaiah xl. ii.) ‘in the ſtrength of JEHOVAH, in the Majeſty of the NAMEof JEHOVAH his God.’ Compare this alſo with the Prophecy of Jeremiah concerning THE BRANCH from, the ſtock of JESSE—‘And this (is) HIS NAME, whereby he ſhall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jer. xxiii. 6.’

His Eternal Exiſtence, and Almighty Power, as GOD, were plainly declared by the Pſalmiſt—‘Thy throne, O GOD, is for ever and ever. (Pſa. xlv. 6.)’ This, as the Apoſtle Paul teſtifies, was ſaid of the SON—‘But unto the SON’ (he ſaith) ‘Thy throne, O GOD (is) FOR EVER AND EVER: a Scepter of Righteouſneſs (is) the Scepter of thy Kingdom. Thou haſt loved RIGHTE⯑OUSNESS’ (which accords with the Name of the Divine Branch, JEHOVAH [264] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS) ‘and hated ini⯑quity; therefore God, (even) thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladneſs above thy fellows. (Heb. i. 8, 9.)’

In the latter part of this ſentence, in⯑deed, the Prophet manifeſtly alludes to the inferior Nature (THE NATURE OF MAN) which this Divine Perſon was to aſſume, for the Angels were not HIS FELLOWS; but Men:—it was Human Nature alone that was to be exalted and reſtored by that peculiar union with the Divine Nature in Chriſt, whereby all Mankind are ren⯑dered FELLOWS and BRETHREN to him ‘that is ready to judge the quick and the dead, (1 Pet.iv. 5.)’ and may thereby become (if their own negligence and wilful abuſe of God's gifts do not pre⯑vent them) even FELLOW HEIRS (Eph. iii. 6.) ‘Heirs of God, and JOINT HEIRS with Chriſt: (Rom. viii. 17.)’ who is ‘the Heir of all things, Heb. i. 2.’—‘For verily he took not on’ (him the nature) ‘[265]of ANGELS; but he took on (him) of the SEED of Abraham. Heb. ii. 16.’ And accordingly the ſame Apoſtle calls him ‘the firſt-born among many BRE⯑THREN, Rom. viii. 29.’ and informs us alſo, that ‘it behoved him to be made like unto (his) BRETHEN, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Prieſt in things (pertaining) to God, to make reconciliation for the ſins of the people. Heb. ii. 17.’ But the Apoſtle, never⯑theleſs, amply proclaims the Eternal Exiſtence and Divine Nature of that Perſon, mentioned in his quotation from the 45th Pſalm, who was to be anointed above HIS FELLOWS; for he immedi⯑ately afterwards quotes another Pſalm (viz. cii. 25—27.) to aſſert the ETER⯑NAL DIGNITY AND POWER of the ſame Perſon—‘And thou, LORD ⁽¹⁰⁵⁾, in the beginning has laid the foundation [266] of the earth: and the heavens are the works of thine hands: they ſhall periſh; [267] but thou remaineſt: and they all ſhall wax old as doth a garment: and as a [268] veſture ſhalt thou fold them up, and they ſhall be changed: but thou art the ſame, and thy years ſhall not fail. Heb. i. 10, 11, 12.’—So that our Lord [269] was really in his Being, or Exiſtence, what the ſame Apoſtle ſeems to apply to his Doctrine, ‘JESUS CHRIST the ſame yeſterday, and to-day, and for ever. (Heb. xiii. 8.)’ For it was He, who ſaid, ‘Fear not; I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST: (I am) He that liveth, and was dead; and be⯑hold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and death. (Rev. i. 17, 18.)’—Thus it appears, that our Redeemer was not only JEHOVAH in Name, but in Effect or Reality alſo, if the true meaning of that title be con⯑ſidered, as his being THE FIRST and THE LAST, demonſtrates his Eternal Exiſtence and Power as much as the Name of JEHOVAH.—Compare the laſt-mentioned text with the exhortation of GOD by Iſaiah (xli. 10.) to his people Iſrael—‘FEAR THOU NOT; for I (am) with thee: be not diſmayed; FOR I (am) THY GOD: I will ſtrengthen [270] thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my RIGHTEOUSNESS.’ And again, in the 13th and 14th verſes, ‘For I the LORD (or JEHOVAH) thy GOD, will hold thy right hand, ſaying unto thee, FEAR NOT, I will help thee. FEAR NOT, thou worm Jacob, (and) ye men of Iſrael: I will help thee, ſaith THE LORD’ (i. e. JEHOVAH) ‘and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Iſrael.’ And this LORD, or JEHOVAH, who here declares himſelf to be THE GOD of Iſrael, proclaims his own ETERNAL EXISTENCE near the beginning of the ſame chapter (viz. 4th verſe) in the very ſame terms that were uſed in the Reve⯑lations by him ‘THAT LIVETH, AND WAS DEAD’—‘Who hath wrought and done (it)’ (ſaid JEHOVAH by Iſaiah) ‘calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord (JEHO⯑VAH) THE FIRST, and WITH THE [271] LAST, I (am) HE.’ And alſo in the 44th chapter, ver. 6. ‘Thus ſaith the LORD (JEHOVAH) the King of Iſrael, and his Redeemer the LORD OF HOSTS (JEHOVAH TSABAOUTH) I (am) THE FIRST, and I (am) THE LAST; and beſide me (there is) no God.’ See alſo Iſai. xlviii. 12. where⯑in we find that ‘the God of Iſrael, the Lord of Hoſts’ (mentioned in the 2d verſe) declares his Eternal Exiſtence in the very ſame terms uſed by Chriſt in the Revelation, viz. ‘I (am) THE FIRST: I ALSO (am) THE LAST’— and as it has already been ſhewn, that the true meaning of the title JEHOVAH is nearly to the ſame purpoſe, it is ma⯑nifeſt that Chriſt is JEHOVAH in effect, as well as in name!

He is JEHOVAH alſo in power and glory—‘Who have declared this from the ancient time?’ (ſaid Iſaiah) ‘(Who) [272] hath told it from that time? (Have) not I JEHOVAH? and (there is) NO GOD ELSE BESIDE ME; A JUST GOD, and A SAVIOUR: (there is) none beſide me. Look unto me, and be ye ſaved all the ends of the earth: for I (am) GOD [...] and (there is) none elſe. I have ſworn by myſelf, the word is gone out of my mouth (in) righteouſ⯑neſs, and ſhall not return, THAT UNTO ME EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW, EVERY TONGUE SHALL SWEAR. Iſai. xlv. 21—23.’

Now let us ſee to whom this is ap⯑plied by the Apoſtle Paul—‘For none of us’ (that is, no true Chriſtian) ‘liveth to himſelf’ (ſays the Apoſtle) ‘and no man dieth to himſelf. For whe⯑ther we live, we live unto THE LORD; and whether we die, we die unto THE LORD: whether we live therefore, or die, WE ARE THE LORD'S. For to [273] this end Chriſt both died, and roſe, and revived, that he might BE LORD both of the dead and living. But why doſt thou JUDGE thy brother? or why doſt thou ſet at nought thy brother? for we ſhall all ſtand before the JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST. For it is writ⯑ten ⁽¹⁰⁶⁾, as I live, ſaith THE LORD ⁽¹⁰⁷⁾, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL CONFESS TO GOD. So then every one of us ſhall give account of himſelf TO GOD. Let us not therefore [274] JUDGE one another any more, &c. Rom. xiv. 7—13.’ The reaſon here aſ⯑ſigned by the Apoſtle for the illegality of JUDGING our Brother, is, that ‘we ſhall all ſtand at the JUDGMENT SEAT OF CHRIST,’ to whom he attributes the dignity of JEHOVAH, by maintain⯑ing in the preceding context, that he is THE LORD, to whom we live and die, &c. and by applying to him Iſaiah's prediction of univerſal homage to JE⯑HOVAH, as if Chriſt himſelf, in his pre-exiſtent ſtate, had ſaid, [...] I JEHOVAH, &c.—‘Unto me every knee ſhall bow,’ &c.—And from this ap⯑plication of the Prophecy to the Perſon of Chriſt, the Apoſtle immediately draws a concluſion with a manifeſt re⯑ference to what he had before ſaid of our ſtanding at the Judgment Seat of Chriſt.—‘So then every one of us ſhall give account of himſelf to GOD. Let us not therefore JUDGE one another any more,’ &c.

[275]From this whole quotation it ap⯑pears, that when the Apoſtle aſſerts the dignity of Chriſt, as being THE LORD of us all— [...] (that we live and die "UNTO THE LORD," [...], &c.) he in effect applies to him the dignity of JEHOVAH, as that title is uſually ex⯑preſſed in Greek by [...], THE LORD. In the Septuagint tranflation we read, [...], (Hear, O Iſrael, the Lord our God is one Lord) for [...] that is, ‘Hear, O Iſrael, JEHOVAH our God, is ONE JEHOVAH. Deut. vi. 4.’—And the ſame text is expreſſed exactly in the ſame words by the Evan⯑geliſt Mark (xii. 29.) where he recites our Lord's anſwer to the queſtion of the Scribe about the firſt (or chief) Commandment; for the Evangeliſt un⯑queſtionably ſubſtitutes the word [...] (Lord) in his Greek text for [...] (Je⯑hovah) in the original Hebrew, of which there are many more inſtances in [276] the New Teſtament; ſo that from thence we are taught the true import and meaning of the title [...], ‘the Lord,’ as applied to Chriſt in the New Teſtament.

LORDS there are, indeed, many; and the word [...] is of as general uſe and application in the Greek Tongue, per⯑haps, as SIR in the Engliſh Tongue; but yet, whenever it is preceded by the article [...] (as, [...]) and has no expreſs reference to any particular place, title, office, or temporal dignity, it muſt ne⯑ceſſarily, in that caſe, be underſtood as a title of Supreme Dignity, becauſe it is then applicable to no other Being, but that alone, which is moſt eminently the Lord ( [...]) as being "Lord of all ^*;" ſo that the title [...], THE LORD (and [277] many times [...] even without the ar⯑ticle) is with propriety ſubſtituted in the Greek Scriptures ⁽¹⁰⁸⁾ for the title JEHOVAH, in tranſlations and quota⯑tions [278] from the Hebrew original, wherein that Holy Name occurs!

It would take up too much of my reader's time (as well as of my own) [279] were I to cite all the examples that may be found in the Greek Scriptures, of quo⯑tations from the Hebrew text, wherein the word [...], or Lord, is ſubſtituted [280] for the Hebrew title [...] Jehovah: however, I have inſerted in the pre⯑ceding note a ſufficient number (I hope) of examples from the Evangeliſts to demonſtrate, beyond contradiction, the true meaning and importance of the Greek title, [...] (LORD) when it is applied to GOD, or to CHRIST; for in that caſe, if there is any truth in the Evangeliſts, as faithful tranſlators, it implies and expreſſes nothing leſs than the dignity of JEHOVAH! Exactly in this ſenſe, therefore, we muſt neceſſarily underſtand the Apoſtle Paul, when he tells us, in his firſt Epiſtle to the Co⯑rinthians (xv. 47.) ‘that the firſt Man [281] (is) of the earth, earthy: the ſecond Man (is) [...]—THE LORD, (or JEHOVAH) from heaven.’—The effect of this tranſlation of mine will appear ſufficiently juſtifiable, if it is compared with a parallel expreſſion of John the Baptiſt recorded by John the Evangeliſt (iii. 31.)—‘He that cometh from above, IS ABOVE ALL’ ( [...]) ‘he that is of the earth, is earth⯑ly, and ſpeaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven’ (the Apoſtle re⯑peats his aſſertion) ‘IS ABOVE ALL!’ ⁽¹¹⁰⁾ &c.

[282]Now it muſt be allowed that none, except ‘the God of Iſrael, whoſe name alone is JEHOVAH, (Pſa. lxxxiii. 18.)’ can juſtly be ſaid to be ABOVE ALL! —So that if THE MESSIAH was not truly GOD, and included with the Al⯑mighty Father and the Holy Ghoſt in the Eternal BEING, JEHOVAH, this expreſ⯑ſion (that he "IS ABOVE ALL") could not, with the leaſt propriety, be ſo pe⯑remptorily [283] and repeatedly applied to him! But as John the Baptiſt (who was ſent to prepare the way of JEHOVAH, as I have already remarked) has poſitively aſſerted concerning him that ‘cometh from heaven,’ that he "is above all," we muſt neceſſarily conclude, that ‘the LORD FROM HEAVEN’ (the title applied to Chriſt by the Apoſtle Paul in the parallel text recited above) is a title of ſupreme Dignity, and implies as much as if the Apoſtle had expreſſly intituled the Meſſiah—"JEHOVAH from heaven;" for had this latter been literally ex⯑preſſed by ſome Prophet in the Hebrew tongue, the Apoſtle's words, [...], would have been the regular Greek verſion of ſuch an expreſſion, which I have already proved by a variety of examples. (See pages 275—281.)

But Chriſt is not only [...], THE LORD (or JEHOVAH) from heaven, [284] but he is alſo "the Lord of Glory" ⁽¹¹¹⁾, one of the higheſt titles that can be conceived! So that if he were not really of one and the ſame Divine Nature with the Almighty Father, this title of Su⯑preme Excellence, ‘THE LORD OF GLORY,’ could not be uſed with the leaſt degree of propriety, eſpecially as God (i. e. the LORD Jehovah) has declared to the Jews, that he will not give his Glory to another—viz. ‘I am THE LORD (i. e. JEHOVAH); that is MY NAME: and MY GLORY will I not give to another, &c. (Iſai. xlii. 8.)’—If Chriſt, therefore, is the ‘LORD OF GLORY,’ he muſt neceſſarily be eſteemed ONE with the Father, in the Eternal BEING JEHOVAH!—Our Lord himſelf alſo declared, ‘I and the Father are ONE.’— [...]. [285] (John x. 30.) and yet this very ſentence, which aſſerts THE UNITY of the Father and the Son, expreſſes at the ſame time a manifeſt Diſtinction of Perſons; which is alſo clearly demonſtrable in almoſt every other page of Scripture; though the doctrine of the Unity of God is not leſs clearly laid down and inculcated throughout the Scriptures!

Our Lord has delivered this doctrine of his Unity with the Father, in various modes of expreſſion; as—‘He that hath ſeen me (ſaid he) hath ſeen the Father,’ &c. and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me, &c. (John xiv. 9, 10.)’ and yet the true nature and manner of that UNITY muſt ſtill remain a Myſtery, becauſe a perfect knowledge of that Eternal BEING, which in every way is infinite, cannot poſſibly fall within the comprehenſion of our finite underſtand⯑ings ⁽¹¹²⁾!

[286]This doctrine is, nevertheleſs, a ne⯑ceſſary part of our Faith; becauſe the Scriptures contain ſuch a proportion of evidence, really within the meaſure of Human judgment, as is ſufficient to authenticate the whole, and demonſtrate the Divine Miſſion of thoſe Holy Per⯑ſons, by whom they were, from time to time, delivered for our inſtruction: and therefore, as we are anſwerable to God for the uſe or abuſe of that Know⯑ledge of Good and Evil, which we inherit from our firſt parents (as I have already ſhewn in the beginning of this Tract) we cannot reject any part of the Scrip⯑ture Evidence, without being guilty of ſuch a manifeſt perverſion and abuſe of that hereditary Knowledge, as muſt ren⯑der us highly culpable before God, and endanger our eternal welfare! We are bound, therefore, to receive even ſome things that we do not underſtand, for the ſake of thoſe things which we do [287] underſtand; juſt as our Lord himſelf inſtructed Philip to believe this very doctrine of his UNITY WITH THE FATHER, for the ſake of the mighty Works ⁽¹¹³⁾ which he had ſhewn him: for theſe, indeed, were evident to his ſenſes, and could not be denied; and therefore, as the Divine Miſſion was ſo ſtrongly authenticated, Philip was bound to receive the whole Doctrine of the [288] Goſpel, as delivered by Divine Autho⯑rity, even though he did not compre⯑hend it! And, in like manner, is every man indeed obliged to ſubmit his judg⯑ment in receiving and acknowledging theſe revealed myſteries of our religion, for the ſake of that ſubſtantial evidence which the Scriptures afford us of other Truth and Facts, which fall more im⯑mediately within the meaſure of Hu⯑man Comprehenſion—‘Believe me, that I am in the Father (ſaid our Lord) and the Father in me, or elſe BELIEVE ME FOR THE VERY WORKS SAKE!’

But our Lord, nevertheleſs, conde⯑ſcended to illuſtrate this doctrine, in ſome degree, by a moſt intereſting com⯑pariſon, which relates, very materially, to the principal ſubject of this Tract, (THE NATURE OF MAN) becauſe it informs us, at the ſame time, concern⯑ing that intimate Connexion with THE [289] DIVINE NATURE, which HUMAN NATURE is rendered capable of ac⯑quiring, through the Divine Mediator between GOD and Man!

‘Sanctify them,’ (ſaid that DIVINE MEDIATOR, when he prayed to his "HOLY FATHER" for his Diſciples) ‘through thy Truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH, [...].’ (And who is this Logos, this Word, this Truth of the "HOLY FATHER," both under the Old and New Covenant, but our Divine Mediator himſelf? who imme⯑diately added) ‘As thou haſt ſent’ ME (ſaid he) ‘into the world, even ſo have I alſo ſent them’ (viz. the Diſciples, as he had formerly ſent the Prophets) ‘into the world. And for their ſakes I ſanctify myſelf, that they alſo might be ſanctified through the Truth. Neither pray I for theſe alone, but for them alſo which ſhall believe on me through their Word; that THEY ALL MAY BE [290] ONE’ (which is the intereſting com⯑pariſon before-mentioned) ‘AS THOU FATHER (art) IN ME, AND I IN THEE, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE IN US: that the world may be⯑lieve that thou haſt ſent me. And THE GLORY which THOU gaveſt ME I have given THEM; that THEY MAY BE ONE, EVEN AS WE ARE ONE: I IN THEM, AND THOU IN ME, that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that thou haſt ſent ME, and haſt loved THEM, as thou haſt loved ME. FATHER, I WILL ( [...]) that they alſo, whom thou has given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold MY GLORY which THOU haſt given ME: for thou lovedſt me BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD. O RIGHTEOUS FATHER, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and theſe have known that thou haſt ſent me. [291] And I have declared unto them thy Name, and will declare (it): that THE LOVE, wherewith thou haſt LOVED ME may be IN THEM, and I in them. John xvii. 17—26.’ Here is a glorious declaration of the Dignity, to which God has been pleaſed to call MANKIND! And as the Unity of the Diſciples, or true Believers, is thus clearly compared to the Unity of THE FATHER and THE SON, it is manifeſt that the doctrine of the laſt-mentioned UNITY (as far as the Scriptures have revealed it to us) is a topic neceſſarily included in the ſubject of this Tract—"The Nature of Man." But this Unity of THE FATHER and THE SON is not in all reſpects the ſame Unity, as that wherein the Church (or Congregation of Diſciples and true Be⯑lievers) is included with the Father and the Son ^*; though the Faithful undoubt⯑edly partake of the Divine Nature by the [292] HOLY SPIRIT, agreeable to the promiſes (ſee p. 200—202), and both CHRIST and THE FATHER are "IN THEM," as our LORD ſaid—‘I IN THEM, and THOU in me,’ agreeable to what our Lord had once before declared—‘If a man love me, he will keep my words: and MY FATHER will love him, and WE will COME UNTO HIM, and make OUR ABODE with him! (John xiv. 23.)’ Thus HUMAN NATURE is capable of being exalted and dignified, even in this life, notwithſtanding the uncertainties and ſufferings attending our worldly con⯑dition!

The Faithful, indeed, are ONE in the Father, and the Son, as our Lord prayed for them to his Heavenly Father, ‘that they all may be ONE ( [...]) AS thou FATHER (art) in me, and I in thee, that they alſo may be ONE IN US,’ &c. and again, that ‘they may be ONE, [...], EVEN AS [293] WE ARE ONE: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in ONE,’ &c. but we muſt be careful to maintain the due diſtinction between the Unity of THE FATHER and THE SON, and the Unity of the Faithful in the Father and the Son! The latter is, indeed (in ſome reſpect or other) like the former, alike probably in that very circumſtance alone of being in Unity— in Unity of WILL, of LOVE, and UNI⯑VERSAL Benevolence, &c. for ‘GOD IS LOVE, and he that dwelleth IN LOVE, dwelleth IN GOD, AND GOD IN HIM, &c. (1 John iv. 16.)’ but it is not altogether the ſame Unity, wherein the Scriptures declare the Almighty Fa⯑ther and his Son to be ONE (as ſome Socinians have conceived) or it could not with propriety be compared with it! Like is compared with Like; but ‘Like is not the ſame,’ even to a proverb! In what reſpect the latter Unity may be like the former, I have already ſhewn by authority [294] of Scripture: but THE HEAVENLY FATHER and HIS SON are ONE in many other reſpects, which cannot with the leaſt degree of propriety be attri⯑buted to the Unity of the Church in Chriſt! The Son of God is ONE with his Almighty Father in Eternal Exiſtence, in that BEING of Eternity, JEHOVAH! (See p. 258—275, &c.) They are ONE alſo in Power and Divine Attributes! The Son being expreſsly intitled ‘LORD OF ALL. (See page 276.)’ ‘THE LORD FROM HEAVEN, (page 283.)’ ‘THE LORD OF GLORY, (p. 284.)’ and is alſo declared to be ‘ABOVE ALL, (p. 281.)’ and ‘OVER ALL, GOD ^* BLESSED FOR EVER ^†.’ Theſe [295] are undoubtedly Attributes of the Hea⯑venly Father (and many more ſhall hereafter be mentioned in the courſe of the argument) ſo that THE FATHER and THE SON are manifeſtly ONE in theſe ſeveral reſpects, and in many more, as there is but ONE GOD, or ONE JEHOVAH! But the Unity of the Congregation of true Believers, (that they are ONE in Chriſt, &c.) muſt be conſidered in a more confined ſenſe: the true Believers are ONE glo⯑rious Univerſal Church, ONE Building, of which our Lord JESUS CHRIST is ‘the Foundation, (1 Cor. iii. 11.)’ ‘the chief Corner Stone, (Eph. ii. 20.)’ "they are a Spiritual Houſe," (1 Pet. ii. 5.) a Bride ^*, (John iii. 29.) a Being of [296] many in one ^*, as the ſymbol of the Che⯑rubim, four living Creatures in one, which moved with one Spirit, and repre⯑ſented the Hoſts of Iſrael (ſee p. [...] ): and of courſe all thoſe that are engrafted on that ſtock (the Olive-tree of Iſrael) through Chriſt ^†, are in like manner eſteemed ONE; becauſe all diſtinctions [297] of Nation, Rank, and Dignity, and even of Sex, are ſet aſide in the true Church—‘There [298] is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor [299] female: for ye are all ONE in CHRIST JESUS. And if ye (be) CHRIST'S, then [300] are ye ABRAHAM'S SEED, and Heirs according to the promiſe. (Gal. iii. [301] 28, 29)’. Thus the Faithful are one in [302] Chriſt, but ſurely not with Chriſt;—I [303] mean, not with him, in the UNITY [304] of Power, Glory, and Eternal Exiſtence, [305] wherein he and the Holy Ghoſt are (and ever were) included with the Almighty Father! The Unity of the Church is, indeed, in ſome reſpects (as I have ſhewn) LIKE the Unity of THE FATHER and THE SON, but it is not the ſame Unity, as the Socinians would inſinuate ^*. In the Communion Service of the Church of England, indeed, mention is made of our Unity WITH Chriſt—‘We are ONE WITH Chriſt, and Chriſt WITH us,’ (ſee Exhortation at the time of the Celebration, &c.) but this has not the leaſt reference to the Unity of Chriſt WITH the Father, but only to the de⯑clared Unity of the Faithful, who form that one Building, whereof Chriſt is the [306] ‘chief Corner (Stone). In whom all THE BUILDING fitly framed together groweth unto AN HOLY TEMPLE in the Lord: in whom ye alſo are builded together for an habitation of GOD through the Spirit. (Eph. ii. 20—22.)’ So that all faithful diſciples are, undoubtedly, ONE in Chriſt (that is, ONE "Holy Temple ^*," or ONE Catholick Church) even as the Father and the Son are ONE: but it muſt appear from the ſeveral texts already quoted (if they are duly compared and weighed together) that the Unity of the Church in Chriſt, is not mentioned as the ſame Unity, wherein the Father and the Son are ONE (viz. One in Power, Glory, and Eternal Exiſtence, or One GOD) but only as a reſemblance or illuſtration, in ſome reſpects, of that DIVINE UNITY!—In [307] ſome reſpects (I ſay) as being united in Will, or in Divine Love (as I have already ſhewn) or by the inſpiration of the HOLY SPIRIT in each individual, through which the whole Congregation of the Faithful that are "builded together" in Chriſt, become "an Habitation of GOD," (ſee the text laſt quoted from Eph. ii. 20— 22.) but not in all reſpects, becauſe there are many circumſtances (ſome of which I have already mentioned) wherein the Unity or Fellowſhip of Chriſt with the Heavenly Father is infinitely tranſcen⯑dent, and ſuch as cannot, without Blaſ⯑phemy, be attributed to the redeemed Brethren, or thoſe that are merely Mem⯑bers of the Church; ſo that the Socinian objection to the doctrine, which neceſ⯑ſarily ariſes from the ſeveral texts, where⯑in the Father and the Son are declared to be ONE, is apparently unjuſt and falſe! May any other Man, but ‘the Man Chriſt Jeſus, (1 Tim. ii. 5.)’ ſay as he did—‘ALL THINGS THAT THE [308] FATHER HATH ARE MINE? (John xvi. 14.)’ And again—"As the Father knoweth me, even ſo know I the Father?" (John x. 15.) or, as Chriſt expreſſed himſelf to his Heavenly Father in Prayer —‘And now, O Father, GLORIFY THOU ME WITH THINE OWN SELF, WITH THE GLORY which I had with thee before the world was? (John xvii. 5.)’ Thus Chriſt declares his right to be glorified with the Heavenly Father himſelf, which muſt mean, to be glorified with SUPREME GLORY, as it is the Glory of the Al⯑mighty Father, "the Glory which" the Son had with his Almighty Father "before the world was!" This glorious Perſon aſſumed the NATURE OF MAN, and for a time dwelt among men, that he might "fulfill all righteouſneſs" (Mat. iii. 15.) even in his Human Nature, and thereby reſtore the loſt dignity and pri⯑vileges of that Nature;—‘the firſt Man (being) of the Earth, earthy;’ but ‘the Second MAN THE LORD FROM HEAVEN! (1 Cor. xv. 47.)’ Human [309] Nature, therefore, is indeed exalted to eternal Glory, but that is only in, by, and through him, who alone is truly and eſſentially the "SON OF GOD," as well as the "SON OF MAN!" For he is ‘the Way, and the Truth, and the Life: No man cometh unto the Father’ (ſaid our Lord) ‘but by me. (John xiv. 6.)’

The miſerable ſtate of fallen MAN is already deſcribed in the former part of this Tract. The means of retrieving our loſt dignity remains ſtill to be ſhewn. God has mercifully revealed to us theſe neceſſary means, and tendered them in the Scriptures to our Choice, that by a prudent uſe of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, we may conſtantly prefer, and chuſe the Good, earneſtly claiming the pro⯑miſes of Divine Aſſiſtance; whereby we ſhall alſo be enabled to reject the Evil on all occaſions, and effectually to reſiſt the Spiritual Enemy, and maintain our inte⯑grity in the ſevereſt trials of our Faith; for ‘in all theſe things we are more than [310] Conquerors through him that loved us. (Rom. viii. 37.)’

Thus the device of SATAN, in pro⯑moting MAN'S aſſumption of forbidden Knowledge, is compleatly turned againſt himſelf; for that very KNOWLEDGE, which (through his deceit and tempta⯑tion) ſubjected all Mankind to SIN and Death, is now (through the mercy of God) become a proper Principle of Action (if we uſe it as we ought) to incline us to RIGHTEOUSNESS, and lead us to "the Tree of Life ⁽¹¹⁴⁾! But we [311] muſt remember, at the ſame time, that this Knowledge in Man is far from being of [312] itſelf ſufficient for theſe purpoſes! The dignity and privileges of Human Nature [313] cannot be known, nor the manner of communicating them properly under⯑ſtood without a right Faith in the Dig⯑nity and Divine Nature of Chriſt, be⯑cauſe, [314] in his Promiſes alone, our title to thoſe extraordinary Privileges is founded! ‘Whatſoever ye ſhall aſk IN MY NAME’ (ſaid our Lord JESUS) ‘that WILL I DO’ (a clear proof of his Divine Nature) ‘that the Father’ (ſaid he) ‘may be glorified in the Son. If ye ſhall aſk any thing in MY NAME’ (ſaid our Lord again) ‘I WILL DO IT, &c. John xiv. 13, 14.’

A right Faith, therefore, concerning the true Dignity of that Divine Perſon, in whoſe Name we hope to obtain the heavenly Gift of the Holy Ghoſt, is undoubtedly neceſſary; and we muſt "give him the honour due unto his Name," or the very mention of that Name, in⯑ſtead of intitling us to favour, would be an offence to God, who ‘hath highly [315] exalted’ his only begotten Son, ‘and given him A NAME, which is above EVERY NAME: that at the NAME of JESUS every knee ſhould bow, of (things) in heaven, and (things) in earth; and (things) under the earth: and that every tongue ſhould confeſs, THAT JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, to THE GLORY OF GOD the Father. (Philip. ii. 9—11.)’

‘Neither is there ſalvation in any other: for there is NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN given among Men, whereby we muſt be ſaved. Acts iv. 12.’ ‘For as the Father raiſed up the dead, and quickeneth them: even ſo the Son quickeneth whom he will. John v. 21.’

In a preceding verſe (viz. 17th) our Lord, in like manner, compared (with a ſeeming inſinuation of equality) his own works with the works of his Father— ‘My Father worketh hitherto’ (ſaid he) ‘and I work.’

[316]The Father which worketh hitherto, was clearly underſtood by the Jews to ſignify the Almighty Father, the Worker or Maker of all things, and therefore they could neither brook the mention he made in the ſame ſentence of his own working, nor the particular claim which our Lord expreſſed in that ſen⯑tence to the Almighty Father as his peculiar Father, calling him My Father, inſtead of Our Father, as the common Parent or Creator of Mankind.

All this is plainly implied in the fol⯑lowing verſe; and ‘therefore the Jews ſought the more to kill him, becauſe he not only had broken the Sabbath,’ (viz. by his miraculous Works in healing the Sick, and doing good) ‘but ſaid alſo, that GOD WAS HIS FATHER,’ [...], (ſaid that God was his proper or peculiar Father) ‘making himſelf EQUAL with God.’ For to call God [317] his peculiar Father was juſtly eſteemed by the Jews the ſame thing as making himſelf "equal with God," though they were unjuſtly incenſed at it, through a want of due attention to the mighty Works (ſimilar to thoſe of the Almighty Father) to which Chriſt appealed, as a proof that he was really the Son of God!

That SUPREME HONOUR is therefore due unto THE NAME AND PERSON OF THE SON, our Bleſſed Redeemer, who, for OUR SAKE, took THE NATURE OF MAN upon himſelf, is manifeſt, becauſe we are expreſſly commanded to honour the Son, even as we honour the Father; ſo that we cannot exceed—‘FOR THE FATHER JUDGETH NO MAN; but hath committed ALL JUDGMENT UN⯑TO THE SON: that all (Men) ſhould honour THE SON, even as they honour THE FATHER, ( [...]’). And again, [318] ‘He that honoureth not the Son, ho⯑noureth not the Father which hath ſent him. John v. 22, 23.’

To "honour the Son" ( [...], from [...] and [...], according as, or) even as they "honour the Father," would be ido⯑latry, if the Son was not a Divine Per⯑ſon, really and truly God from all Eter⯑nity! Becauſe the God of Iſrael, the Eternal and Everlaſting [...] Jehovah, and Creator of all things ⁽¹¹⁵⁾, at the very time that he promiſed this Glori⯑ous Redeemer ‘for a Covenant of the people, for a Light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the PRISONERS from the PRISON’ (that [319] is, from the bondage and ſlavery of Satan) ‘and them that ſit in darkneſs out of the PRISON-HOUSE,’ he im⯑mediately added in the very next ſen⯑tence, ‘I am the LORD’ (or Jehovah) ‘THAT IS MY NAME: and my GLO⯑RY will I not give to ANOTHER, &c. Iſai. xlii. 5—8.’

It is impoſſible therefore, that the Supreme God, JEHOVAH, ſhould ‘give his Glory,’ or require Men to honour the Son, even as they honour the Father, if the Son was another, or not in Unity or One with the Father in the Eternal Being of the One God; I mean, if he was not included in the One Eternal Divine Being [...] which is but ONE ( [...] One Jehovah) that is, UNITY ITSELF, and therefore incapable of dif⯑ferent Degrees, or Inequality. ‘Hear, O Iſrael (ſaid Moſes) the Lord (or Jehovah) our God, is One Lord,’ or ‘[320]ONE Jehovah. ( [...]) Deut. vi. 4.’ And yet we find, that this glorious Name of the One Eternal God of Iſrael; viz. Jehovah [...], is manifeſtly attri⯑buted, both in the Old and New Teſta⯑ments (as I have already ſhewn), to the Meſſiah as a diſtinct Perſon from the Father; and therefore, when we read our Lord's expreſſion in John xiv. 28. "My Father is greater than I," we muſt neceſſarily underſtand, that no comparative reference can poſſibly have been intended thereby, nor is to be made, concerning the Divine Nature, or Godhead, which certainly is but One, viz. "ONE JEHOVAH," as the text expreſſly declares, and conſequently we muſt acknowledge with the Author of the Creed, commonly attributed to Athanaſius, that ‘the Son is equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead,’ (viz. the One Eternal Being, or Jehovah) ‘though inferior to the Father as touch⯑ing [321] his Manhood,’ or his Mediatorial Office; for in ſome ſuch qualified ſenſe we muſt of courſe underſtand our Lord's expreſſion in John (‘The Father is greater than I’) before-mentioned; for thoſe Men, who venture to aſſert, that the Inferiority of the Son conſiſts in his Divine Nature, muſt evidently ſuppoſe a Superior and Inferior Divine Nature, and conſequently, that there are Two Divine Natures, which Idea the Scriptures expreſſly forbid—‘(JEHO⯑VAH, OUR GOD, is ONE JEHOVAH, (Deut. vi. 4.)’—And therefore, as the Son is alſo JEHOVAH, we are bound by the Scriptures to believe, that he is of the ſame Divine Nature with the Father in that One Eternal Being, agreeable to what he himſelf has declared—‘I and the Father are One. ( [...]) John x. 30.’ And as the Plurality of Perſons is clearly expreſſed in the latter text by the Plural Verb [...], we [322] are; ſo the word [...], One, evidently de⯑monſtrates the UNITY and EQUALITY of their Divine Nature; for it is no leſs evident from the context, that the ſaid word [...], ONE, refers to the Being of God, or Jehovah, and was intended to expreſs the Unity of their Divine Nature ^*. The Jews, it is plain, underſtood the expreſſion in that ſenſe, and immediately charged our Lord with Blaſphemy— ſaying,—‘Becauſe that thou, being a Man, makeſt thyſelf God.’ And though our Lord condeſcended to cite a paſſage from the Pſalms, wherein the title of Gods is applied to mere Men, viz. ‘I ſaid ye are Gods,’ in order to ſhew, that the Scriptures would not be broken by the conſequence which they had drawn from his expreſſion; yet he im⯑mediately after maintains the evident meaning of his firſt expreſſion, as it was [323] at firſt underſtood by the Jews, and, by a fair compariſon, ſhewed his infinite ſuperiority over them that were called Gods, in the Law, ‘If he,’ (ſaid our Lord, meaning the Prophet David) ‘called them GODS, unto whom the Word of GOD came, and the Scripture can⯑not be broken; ſay ye of him, whom the Father hath ſanctified, and ſent into the world, thou blaſphemeſt; becauſe I ſaid, I am THE SON OF GOD?’ And our Lord immediately added an inconteſtable proof of his being GOD [not merely in a confined, qualified Senſe, like thoſe Men called GODS in Scripture ⁽¹¹⁶⁾, but GOD alſo] in Effect and Power!—‘If [324] I do not THE WORKS OF MY FA⯑THER’ (continued our Lord) ‘be⯑lieve me not. BUT IF I DO, though [325] you believe not me, BELIEVE THE WORKS: that ye may know and BE⯑LIEVE that the FATHER is IN ME, and I IN HIM. (John x. 31—38.)’

[326]This reference to the Works of the Father, was a manifeſt appeal of Chriſt to the underſtanding of his hearers, concerning the peculiar manner in which [327] he was really God, and of the ſame Divine Nature with THE FATHER, agreeable to the obvious ſenſe of his [328] firſt propoſition—‘I and the Father are One, (ver. 30.)’—and the unbe⯑lieving Jews (notwithſtanding their men⯑tal [329] blindneſs, and hardneſs of heart, fore⯑told by their own Prophets) as plainly underſtood, that the neceſſary effect of this argument was exactly the ſame upon the whole, that they at firſt ap⯑prehended; viz. that he ‘MADE HIM⯑SELF,’ (i. e. declared himſelf to be really) ‘GOD,’ and therefore they im⯑mediately renewed their wicked perſe⯑cution as at firſt; for ‘they ſought again to take him,’ (ſays the text) ‘but he eſcaped out of their hand, (ver. 39.)’

My readers may perhaps think, that I prolong my work too much, and ren⯑der it tedious, by inſerting ſo many proofs concerning the Divine Nature of THE SON OF GOD; but alas! I find, that my labour on this point is become neceſſary! Many learned men, and ſome, [330] even of my own particular friends, have unhappily overlooked that indiſpenſable doctrine, and do not perceive, that the glorious Name JEHOVAH (the peculiar Name of THE ONE SUPREME GOD) is clearly in the Scriptures attributed alſo to the Son of God! And we cannot rightly underſtand the Nature and Dig⯑nity of MAN (which is my leading ſub⯑ject in this Tract) nor the true value of THE PRICE which was given for MAN'S REDEMPTION (as we ‘are bought with A PRICE, 1 Cor. vi. 20.’) unleſs we are truly ſenſible of the Nature and Dignity (as far as God has revealed it to us in the Scriptures) of that Di⯑vine Perſon, who took Human Nature upon himſelf, in order to reſtore the loſt Dignity and Privileges of fallen MAN!

One of my learned friends (though a ſenſible and worthy man) amongſt other arguments and quotations againſt my doctrine, remarks as follows.

[331] ‘The Apoſtle Paul’ (ſays he) ‘ſaith, in Epheſ. i. 17—20. that’ ‘THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, THE FATHER OF GLORY’—‘SET HIM AT HIS OWN RIGHT HAND.’ ‘Hence’ (ſays my learned friend) ‘it neceſſarily follows that Chriſt is not Jehovah, but the Son of Jehovah.—God, who made the worlds by his Son, is the Father of Chriſt. (Heb. i. 2.)’ See likewiſe (ſays he) Iſaiah xi. 2.—‘The Spirit of JEHOVAH ſhall reſt upon him.’—‘Alſo Iſai. lxi. 1, 2.’ ‘The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, becauſe JEHOVAH hath anointed me to preach,’ &c. ‘com⯑pared with Luke iv. 18.’

Now that Chriſt is the Son of God, or (as my friend ſtiles him) ‘the Son of Jehovah ^*,’ every true Chriſtian muſt [332] readily allow to be a true and indiſpen⯑ſable doctrine; but it by no means fol⯑lows from thence (though my friend ſays it neceſſarily follows) ‘that Chriſt is not Jehovah!’ To the direct con⯑trary of my friend's aſſertion, I am obliged to remark, that as Chriſt is the Son of Jehovah, and the Son of God in a peculiar and eſſential manner ^*, it ne⯑ceſſarily follows from thence, that he is alſo really and truly GOD and JEHOVAH in an eſſential manner; for as a SON muſt neceſſarily partake of the Nature [333] or Eſſence of his natural FATHER, ſo "THE SON OF JEHOVAH" muſt neceſ⯑ſarily be of the ſame Nature, Being, or Eſſence with his ALMIGHTY FATHER, JEHOVAH; and as there is but ONE JEHOVAH, muſt neceſſarily in ſome way or other (though incomprehenſible to us at preſent) be included in that ONE Eternal BEING! The very circum⯑ſtance which my friend aſſigns as a proof that "the Son is NOT JEHOVAH," was eſteemed by the unbelieving Jews (when our Lord was on earth) as a proof that he made himſelf equal with God! ‘Therefore the Jews ſought the more to kill him, becauſe he not only had broken the Sabbath’ (that is, as they falſely alledged, becauſe he had healed the Sick, and done good on the Sabbath Day, which was certainly lawful) ‘but ſaid alſo, that GOD WAS HIS FA⯑THER’ ( [...], his own proper or peculiar Father, that is, his Father [334] in a real or eſſential manner; and this, it ſeems, is the very reaſon which my friend has aſſigned as a proof that Chriſt is not Jehovah, but which, on the contrary, the Jews rightly eſteemed to be the ſame thing as) ‘making him⯑ſelf EQUAL WITH GOD! [...]. John v. 18.’

Our Lord was ſo far from denying the truth of the conſequential Doctrine, which the Jews had drawn from his having ſaid, that "God was his Father," [...]—"his own proper Father," that he immediately, in the very next verſe, appealed to his works for the truth of it! ‘Then anſwered Jeſus, and ſaid unto them, Verily, Verily, I ſay unto you, the Son can do nothing of himſelf, but what he ſeeth the Father do:’ (ſhewing thereby, that the Father is in⯑deed the Fountain of Power; but im⯑mediately afterwards he ſhews likewiſe, [335] that he himſelf, as being Son of the Al⯑mighty Father, was therefore equal in Power with THE FATHER) ‘for what things ſoever he’ (that is, the Father) ‘doeth’ (ſaid our Lord) ‘THESE ALSO DOETH THE SON LIKEWISE!’ (or in like manner [...], which is ſurely ſuch an ample declaration of his own Almighty Power, as could not be true, were he not really JEHOVAH) ‘For the Father’ (continued our Lord) ‘loveth the Son, and ſheweth him ALL THINGS THAT HIMSELF DOETH: and he will ſhew him greater WORKS THAN THESE’ (alluding to the mighty WORKS, by which he proved himſelf to be "THE SON OF JEHOVAH") ‘that ye may marvel’ (ſaid he). ‘For as the Father raiſeth up the dead, and quickeneth (them); EVEN SO THE SON QUICKENETH WHOM HE WILL.’ [Another inconteſtable declaration of AL⯑MIGHTY POWER, ſuch as cannot be at⯑tributed [336] to any that is not TRULY GOD, though it is certainly an eſpecial Attri⯑bute of him that is called [...] —"THE PRINCE (or Author) OF LIFE ⁽¹¹⁷⁾]! ‘For the Father’ (continues our Lord) ‘judgeth no man; but hath committed ALL JUDGMENT unto the Son, that all (men) ſhould honour ⁽¹¹⁸⁾ the Son, even as they honour the Fa⯑ther.’ (And as ſupreme Honour is certainly due to THE FATHER, we [337] muſt of courſe honour THE SON with ſupreme Honour, EVEN AS ( [...]) ‘we honour the Father.’ This is ſo ne⯑ceſſary a part of the Chriſtian Duty, that men cannot pay the proper honour to THE HEAVENLY FATHER, unleſs they thus honour THE SON, alſo, with ſupreme Honour; for) ‘HE THAT HONOURETH NOT THE SON’ (that is, ‘He that honoureth not the Son, even [338] as he honoureth the Father’—for this is neceſſarily implied from the preceding Context) "HONOURETH NOT THE FA⯑THER "⁽¹¹⁹⁾, WHICH HATH SENT HIM. John v. 17—23.

The Scriptures attribute Eternal Ho⯑nour and Glory to THE SON, and that jointly with THE HEAVENLY FA⯑THER [339] —‘Bleſſing, and HONOUR, and GLORY, and POWER, be unto him that ſitteth upon the throne, AND UNTO THE LAMB, for ever and ever. And the four beaſts’ (or animals ⁽¹²⁰⁾ repreſenting the Redeemed Hoſts of Iſrael) ‘ſaid, AMEN. (Rev. v. 13, 14. See alſo the 12th verſe.)’

[340]Thus we find, that ‘HONOUR, and GLORY, and POWER,’ belong ‘UN⯑TO THE LAMB FOR EVER!’ He had indeed, for a time, laid aſide this SU⯑PREME GLORY (this Glory which is attributed to him jointly with him that ſitteth upon the Heavenly Throne) that he might become "the Son of Man," and ‘by Obedience ⁽¹²¹⁾ in fulfilling the Law ⁽¹²²⁾,’ and ‘all Righteouſ⯑neſs [341] ⁽¹²³⁾,’ even as A MAN, might re⯑trieve the dignity and loſt privileges of HUMAN NATURE: but the Divine Glory was again to be reſtored to him, though he now partook of the Nature of his Creature Man; nay, the Son himſelf, even when a Man, claims the Glory of his Heavenly Father!—‘And now, O Father’ (ſaid he) ‘GLORI⯑FY THOU ME WITH THINE OWN⯑SELF, WITH THE GLORY which I had WITH THEE before the world was. John xvii. 5. See alſo p. 308.’

It was not only in his Divine Nature, that THE SON was to be thus glorified, but expreſsly as "MAN;" ſo that the Nature of MAN is indeed exalted in Chriſt to the higheſt pitch of glory!— ‘Behold THE MAN, whoſe Name is [342] THE BRANCH’ (ſays the Prophet Zechariah) ‘he ſhall grow up out of his place, and he ſhall BUILD THE TEM⯑PLE of the Lord ⁽¹²⁴⁾: even he ſhall BUILD THE TEMPLE of the Lord; and he ſhall BEAR THE GLORY,’ (that is, even he,—THE MAN that is called the Branch, ſhall BEAR THE GLORY) ‘and ſhall SIT and RULE UPON HIS THRONE; and he ſhall be A PRIEST UPON HIS THRONE,’ [that is, a ROYAL PRIEST, after the order of that Righteous King, ⁽¹²⁵⁾, who was KING of SALEM, or King of PEACE ⁽¹²⁶⁾] ‘and the Counſel of PEACE ſhall [343] be between them both. (Zechariah vi. 12, 13.)’ The throne or kingdom here promiſed, was alſo to be an everlaſting Kingdom, though given to Chriſt, ex⯑preſſly as "Son of Man;" for it is cer⯑tainly the ſame Kingdom foretold by the Prophet Daniel,—‘I ſaw in the night viſions,’ (ſays Daniel) ‘and behold (one) like THE SON OF MAN came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him DOMINION, and GLORY, and A KINGDOM, that all People, Nations, and Languages, ſhould ſerve him: HIS DOMINION IS AN EVER⯑LASTING DOMINION, WHICH SHALL NOT PASS AWAY, and HIS KINGDOM (that) WHICH SHALL NOT BE DE⯑STROYED.’ [344] Dan. vii. 13, 14. Com⯑pare this with chap. ii. 44. wherein the ſame Prophet informs us, that—‘in the days of theſe Kings’ (meaning the Kings, or rather Kingdoms, which ſuc⯑ceeded the fourth great Kingdom or Roman Empire) ‘ſhall the God of Hea⯑ven ſet up a Kingdom, which ſhall NEVER BE DESTROYED: and the King⯑dom ſhall not be left to other People, (but) it ſhall break in pieces, and con⯑ſume all theſe Kingdoms, and IT SHALL STAND FOR EVER.’ The Pſalmiſt had alſo previouſly declared—‘Thy Throne, O GOD, is FOR EVER AND EVER. Pſal. xlv. 6.’ Which the Apoſtle Paul has applied expreſſly to the Son. Heb. i. 8. Theſe Prophecies of an Eternal Kingdom, proclaimed by the Prophets under the Old Teſtament, were confirmed by the Angel GABRIEL, when he declared the Eternity of CHRIST'S Government:—‘And behold’ (ſaid he [345] to the Bleſſed Virgin) ‘thou ſhalt con⯑ceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and ſhalt call his Name JESUS’ (which ſignifies A SAVIOUR. See note in p. 225.) ‘He ſhall be great, and ſhall be called the Son of the Higheſt: and THE LORD GOD ſhall give unto him THE THRONE of his Father David. And he ſhall REIGN over the Houſe of Jacob FOR EVER (— [...]): and of HIS KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END ( [...].’) Luke i. 31—33. The Apoſtle Paul, nevertheleſs, informs us of a time, ‘when he (Chriſt) ſhall have DELIVERED UP THE KINGDOM TO GOD, EVEN THE FATHER; when he ſhall have put down all Rule, and all Authority and Power.’ (meaning ALL POWER that in any degree is oppoſite or inimical in its Nature to his KINGDOM OF RIGHT⯑EOUSNESS) ‘For he muſt REIGN till he hath put all Enemies under his Feet.’ [346] 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25. And again, in the 28th verſe—‘And 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 MAY BE ALL IN ALL.’ The two laſt mentioned texts, when collated with the preceding declara⯑tions concerning the Eternity of Chriſt's Kingdom, would contain an irreconcileable difficulty, were it not clearly demon⯑ſtrable, that "the Son of God" is really included with THE ALMIGHTY FA⯑THER in the Eternal BEING JEHOVAH, and conſequently is truly GOD! For the fact is, that he is called JEHOVAH and GOD in many unqueſtionable paſſages of Scripture, in ſome expreſsly, in others by neceſſary implication, (ſeveral examples of which are already cited in this Tract) and no inference to the contrary can be juſtly drawn from any of the texts which my learned friend (before mentioned) [347] has laid before me as proofs of an op⯑poſite ſentiment!

Moſt of theſe indeed are ſuch as re⯑late to the Son, merely in his mediatorial Office as MESSIAH, or the Anointed of JEHOVAH;—as Pſal. ii. 2. ⁽¹²⁷⁾ com⯑pared with Acts iv. 24, 25, 26. alſo Heb. i. 8, 9.—Pſal. cx. 1. 1 Cor. xv. 25. [348] (which is the particular text now under conſideration) Eph. i. 17.20. and Heb. i. 2. And others relate particularly to Chriſt's miniſtry, whilſt he dwelt perſonally as a Man upon earth;—as Iſai. xi. 2. ⁽¹²⁸⁾ lxi. 1, 2. compared with Luke iv. 18.—Theſe prove indeed that [349] he is ‘inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood,’ and all of them demon⯑ſtrate his ſubordination to the Almighty Father in the miniſtry and gracious offices which he had undertaken for the reſtoration of mankind; but none of them afford the leaſt ſhadow of contra⯑diction to the texts wherein his Divine Nature is declared! One particular text, however, remains to be mentioned, which at firſt ſight, ſeems to militate againſt my general argument—viz. Pſal. lxxxiii. 18.—‘That (men) may know that thou’ (i. e. GOD mentioned in the 1ſt and 13th verſes) ‘WHOSE NAME ALONE IS JE⯑HOVAH, (art) the moſt High over all the earth.’—Now, it is ſtrictly true, indeed, (though I do not think it the proper tranſlation of this text, ſee pages 233—236.) that God ALONE is JE⯑HOVAH, becauſe Jehovah alone is God ^*; and the Scriptures aſſure us, that there is but ONE JEHOVAH, (Deut. [350] vi. 4.) or One "ONLY WISE GOD." (Rom. xvi. 27. 1 Tim. i. 17.) And therefore, when the Son of God is called JEHOVAH, or GOD, he is not ſo named, as being diſtinct or ſeparate with reſpect to that ONE Eternal Being, JEHOVAH, or GOD, but as being included in that Divine Nature, or GOD, ‘whoſe Name alone is JEHOVAH,’ and as being ONE with the ALMIGHTY FATHER! which was declared by the Son himſelf; —‘I and the Father ( [...]) WE ARE ONE. (John x. 30.)’ ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me. (John xiv. 11. xvii. 21. and x. 38.)’ And therefore, though the Son ‘ſhall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Fa⯑ther,’—and ſhall ‘alſo himſelf be ſubject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all,’ (as declared in the texts cited above from 1 Cor. xv. 24—28.) yet, as the Son is in the Father, and the Father in him, and [351] as "all things that the Father hath are" the Son's (John xvi. 15.) and as he muſt of courſe be glorified with the Glory which he had with the Father himſelf before the world was, (John xvii. 5.) it is manifeſt that he will ſtill reign in and with the ALMIGHTY FATHER in that Eternal Being of GOD, which will then "be all in all!"

In the above mentioned text of St. Paul, it is ſaid, that ‘He’ (Chriſt) ‘muſt reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet,’ and that ‘the laſt enemy (that) ſhall be deſtroyed is DEATH. (1 Cor. xv. 25, 26.)’ This opens to us the time that Chriſt will deliver up the kingdom. DEATH, that laſt enemy, will be effectually deſtroyed, when all men, that are redeemed by Chriſt, are riſen from DEATH! The world itſelf (where alone Death reigned) and all that is deſirable in it, will then [352] not only be "burned up," (2 Pet. iii. 10.) but will be made the ſeat of eter⯑nal Horror and "everlaſting Fire," (ſee Notes in pages 130 and 142.) and the irrevocable decrees of the Son of MAN, in his final Judgment upon MEN and ANGELS, will by that time have taken place! Here, then, is an end of the whole Chriſtian Diſpenſation! What need can there be of a Redeemer, a Me⯑diator, or of a Judge, after the Fate of all Mankind is determined!—It is no leſſening, therefore, of the Son's Dig⯑nity, that he then delivers up the ſeveral charges which he had undertaken in obedience to his Father's will, when the ſame ſhall have been compleatly executed and fulfilled!—The generality of Commentators agree, that it is Chriſt's Mediatorial Kingdom which will then be delivered up; but they ſhould alſo have mentioned that Sovereignty, which is ſtill of higher degree, that glorious [353] Sovereign Authority, which is of un⯑ſpeakable Dignity; I mean that of ſit⯑ting as SUPREME JUDGE OF THE UNI⯑VERSE! An Authority of which even the Almighty Father hath diveſted him⯑ſelf—‘For the Father judgeth no Man, but hath committed all Judgment unto the Son’ (and the ſupreme Dignity of the Truſt is fully declared by the reaſon of its being given); ‘that all (Men) ſhould honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. (John v. 22, 23.)’ Nay, not only Men, but Angels muſt honour him; for the word ALL ( [...]) includes Angels as well as Men; and we read expreſsly, that Angels are required to WORSHIP HIM ⁽¹²⁹⁾, which would be groſs idolatry, if Chriſt was not truly GOD, and One with the Father in the [354] Eternal Being JEHOVAH! And when the important Truſt ſhall have been fulfilled, and compleatly executed, that Divine Authority and Juriſdiction, as ſupreme Judge (which had been com⯑mitted only to One of the Divine Per⯑ſons) ſhall be delivered up, together with all other offices of diſtinct or ſeparate Au⯑thority, that ‘GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL.’ And in GOD, undoubtedly, the Son of God ‘ſhall reign over the Houſe of Jacob for ever: and of his Kingdom there ſhall be no end!’—Agreeable to the Angels Prophecy. Luke i. 33.

The Scriptures indeed are every where filled with clear Teſtimonies concerning the Divinity of our BLESSED REDEEM⯑ER, ſo that the command to honour him, "even as we honour the Father," is per⯑fectly conſiſtent with all the reſt. And therefore, unleſs we HONOUR the Son with SUPREME HONOUR, ‘even as we honour the Father,’ we fall ſhort [355] of the command; and, for want of due Faith, cannot expect to obtain of the Father that glorious and heavenly Gift for the neceſſary improvement of Human Nature, which our REDEEMER has pro⯑miſed ‘to them that aſk in his Name, even the Spirit of Truth, (John xv. 26.)’ which ‘will guide us into all Truth. (John xvi. 13.)’

The ſupreme, or equal Divine Nature of THE HOLY SPIRIT, is not leſs clearly declared, in ſeveral parts of Scripture, than the Divine Nature of THE SON OF GOD, notwithſtanding that ſome other parts of Scripture expreſs a manifeſt Subordination of Office; as that ‘he ſhall NOT SPEAK OF HIMSELF; but what⯑ſoever he "SHALL HEAR, (that) ſhall he ſpeak ⁽¹³⁰⁾;"’ and that he is ſent [356] or given by the Father ⁽¹³¹⁾; and alſo [357] by the Son ⁽¹³²⁾; and again, that he is declared to be "the Spirit of Chriſt" ⁽¹³³⁾, as well as "the Spirit of God!" [358] —yet (I ſay, notwithſtanding theſe ex⯑preſſions of Subordination) the ſupreme or equal Divine Nature of THE HOLY SPIRIT is clearly revealed in ſeveral parts of Scripture. The Prophet Iſaiah, for inſtance, has declared the Divine Omnipotence of the Spirit in the ſtrong⯑eſt terms;—in terms which prove, that "the Spirit of God" is a free and inde⯑pendent Spirit, and is truly God of the [359] ſame ſupreme Divine Nature, or Eternal Being, with the other Two Divine Per⯑ſons; for this Prophet expreſſly applies to "the Spirit of God" the ſame ſupreme Attributes of Creation and Almighty Power, which in other parts of Scrip⯑ture are occaſionally attributed to the other Two Divine Perſons!

But hear the words of the Prophet himſelf, dictated by that ſame Spirit.— ‘Who hath meaſured the waters in the hollow of his hand? and meted out hea⯑ven with the ſpan, and comprehended the duſt in a meaſure, and weighed the mountains in ſcales, and the hills in a ba⯑lance? Who hath directed THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD,’ (or rather the SPI⯑RIT OF JEHOVAH [...], for thus exactly is the Spirit of the Lord com⯑monly expreſſed in the Old Teſtament, when mention is made of his inſpiration or coming down upon the Prophets) ‘or who (being) his Counſellor, hath taught him? With whom took he counſel; [360] and (who) inſtructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and ſhewed to him the way of underſtanding?’ (Thus the Prophet clearly inſiſts on the indepen⯑dency of the free ^* Spirit of the Lord) ‘—Behold, the nations (are) as as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the ſmall duſt of the balance: behold, he taketh up the iſles as a very little thing. And Libanon (is) not ſufficient to burn, nor the beaſts thereof ſufficient for a burnt-offering! All nations before him (are) as nothing: and they are counted to him leſs than nothing, and vanity. (Iſaiah xl. 12—17.)’ The Prophet af⯑terwards proceeds to ſpeak of GOD ( [...]) without further diſtinction of Perſons, having already, in the preceding part of the chapter, clearly diſtinguiſhed the Perſon of the Son of God under the title [361] of "Jehovah," and "our God," whoſe Advent was to be proclaimed by the voice in the wilderneſs, and of whom Sion and Jeruſalem were directed to ſay unto the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God, (ſee p. 248—258)’ and having alſo expreſſly diſtinguiſhed ‘the Spirit of Jehovah,’ and proclaimed his Di⯑vine Attributes and ſupreme Dignity, (ſee ver. 12—17. laſt cited) he now proceeds to ſpeak of GOD (in the 18th verſe) without further diſtinction of Perſons. ‘To whom then’ (continues he) ‘will ye liken GOD? or what likeneſs will ye compare unto him? (ver. 18, &c.)’

The Spiritual Nature of GOD is ſurely ſo far above our finite comprehenſion, that it cannot be explained or expreſſed by any likeneſs or compariſon whatſo⯑ever!—But yet, as we may clearly per⯑ceive and underſtand, by what is revealed to us, that the ſupreme Attributes of Creation and Almighty Power are applied [362] expreſsly to the Holy Spirit (as in the above cited text of Iſaiah) which in other parts of Scripture are equally attri⯑buted to THE FATHER AND THE SON, we may reaſonably conclude, that the ſupreme Dignity of the HOLY SPIRIT muſt neceſſarily conſiſt in his entire Union and Equality with the Father and with the Son in the Divine Nature, or GODHEAD ^*—that ONE eternal and glo⯑rious Being, JEHOVAH, ‘which is, and which was, and which is to come, THE ALMIGHTY! (Rev. i. 8. ſee alſo p. 239.)’

This entire Union of THE HOLY SPI⯑RIT with the Almighty Father and the Son, in the One Eternal Being of GOD, is a neceſſary doctrine, without which THE ALMIGHTY POWER, attributed in the Scriptures to the Holy Spirit, cannot be reconciled to that other indiſpenſable Article of our Faith, the Unity of God!

[363]In the Book of Job (ch. xxxiii. 4.) the Spirit is declared to be the Creator! ‘THE SPIRIT OF GOD ⁽¹³⁴⁾ hath MADE me, and THE BREATH’ (a term ſynonymous to SPIRIT) ‘of the Almighty hath given me Life.’ In the account alſo which Moſes has given us of the Creation, we read, that ‘the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Gen. i. 2.)’ And the Pſalmiſt attributes the Creation to THE SPIRIT jointly with the Divine WORD; —‘By the WORD of JEHOVAH were the heavens made: and all the hoſt of [364] them, by the BREATH (or SPIRIT ⁽¹³⁵⁾ of his mouth. (Pſal. xxxiii. 6.)’ And afterwards, when the Divine WORD was made fleſh and dwelt among us, he himſelf expreſſly attributed to ‘the Spirit of God’ ⁽¹³⁶⁾ thoſe mighty WORKS, to which he appealed for the truth of his doctrine concerning his Unity with the Almighty Father (ſee p. 287.) and which, at another time, he expreſſly calls the Works of his Father! ⁽¹³⁷⁾ So that without the doctrine of the Unity of the Divine Nature, this ap⯑plication of the ſame Attributes to dif⯑ferent Perſons could not be underſtood!

[365]St, Paul alſo attributed to ‘THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD’ ⁽¹³⁸⁾ the miracles, which he wrought "through Jeſus Chriſt," in preaching his Goſpel to the Gentiles. Nay, even the miraculous Conception of the Bleſſed Virgin (from whence the Holy Child Jeſus was called "the Son of God") is expreſſly attributed to the Holy Ghoſt by St. Matthew—‘She was found with Child of the Holy Ghoſt (i. 18.)’ ‘for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghoſt. (i. 20.)’ Compare this with Luke i. 35.—‘The Holy Ghoſt ſhall come upon thee,’ &c.

[366]The glorious Title [...]—‘the Power of the Higheſt,’ which imme⯑diately follows theſe words concerning the Holy Ghoſt in the laſt mentioned text, is by ſeveral learned Commentators at⯑tributed alſo to him, viz. the Holy Spirit ⁽¹³⁹⁾; and a Title nearly ſimilar is certainly attributed to the ſame Spirit, even by our Lord himſelf, when he fore⯑told the fulfilling of God's promiſe in the Gift of the Holy Ghoſt. —‘And behold (ſaid he) I ſend the promiſe of my Father ⁽¹⁴⁰⁾ upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jeruſalem, until ye be endued with POWER FROM ON HIGH. (Luke xxiv. 49.)’

[367]Similar Titles are alſo given to the Son of God; for even in his miniſterial Cha⯑racter as Meſſiah, or Chriſt, after he had taken Human Nature upon him, he is called ‘THE POWER OF GOD, AND THE WISDOM OF GOD. (1 Cor. i. 24.)’ Surely theſe are Attributes of the Divine Nature, and Titles of ſupreme Dignity!

The Power of Juſtification muſt cer⯑tainly be alſo accounted a Divine Attri⯑bute, and as ſuch can belong to none but GOD; ‘for it is GOD that JUSTI⯑FIETH (Rom. viii. 33.)’ but yet both Juſtification, and Sanctification alſo, (another Divine Attribute) are expreſsly attributed to the HOLY SPIRIT, jointly with CHRIST!—‘But ye are waſhed, but ye are SANCTIFIED, but ye are JUSTIFIED, in the Name of the LORD JESUS, and by (or in) THE SPIRIT of our God. (1 Cor. vi. 11.)’

[368]To give Life, alſo, is not leſs apparently an Attribute of THE DIVINE NATURE than Creation, whether we ſpeak of mere Animal Life, or the Spiritual or Eternal Life, but more eſpecially the latter, and yet this ALMIGHTY POWER is attributed both to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit! For though it is ‘GOD who quickeneth the dead, (Rom. iv. 17.)’ and ‘who quickeneth all things; (1 Tim. vi. 13.)’ yet the Son alſo is called ‘a quick⯑ening Spirit, 1 Cor. xv. 45.’ ‘and quickeneth whom he will, ( [...], John v. 21.)’ and by the ſame authority we know likewiſe, that ‘it is THE SPIRIT that QUICKENETH! (John vi. 63.)’ In conſequence of this Al⯑mighty Power the Son is called ‘THE PRINCE (or Author) OF LIFE ⁽¹⁴¹⁾, [369] and the Spirit is expreſsly intituled— the Spirit of LIFE ⁽¹⁴²⁾.’

Add to this, that the Spirit is expreſsly intituled ‘the Spirit of Wiſdom and Underſtanding, the Spirit of Counſel and Might ⁽¹⁴³⁾, the Spirit of Holi⯑lineſs’ ⁽¹⁴⁴⁾, and ‘THE SPIRIT OF GLORY’ ⁽¹⁴⁵⁾! Theſe expreſſions of [370] Dignity and Power are unlimited, and do certainly include the higheſt or ſupreme degree of the ſeveral recited Attributes, even the infinite Wiſdom, Underſtanding, Counſel, &c. of GOD, becauſe they are attributed to that glorious Spirit, which ‘ſearcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God! (1 Cor. ii. 10.)’ and they are attributed to him, alſo, as eſſential Properties, which are ſo eminently his, that he is even named from them—‘the Spirit of Wiſdom’—‘the Spirit of Might’—‘the Spirit of Glory;’ as Chriſt is alſo intituled—‘the Power of God, and the Wiſdom of God, (ſee p. 367.)’ and "the Lord of Glory," ſee pages 283, 284.

Theſe Titles and Attributes cannot (in that eminent and eſſential degree in which they are attributed both to the Son and Holy Spirit) belong to any Being that is not truly God, and Jehovah: and it is clearly revealed to us, that there is [371] but One Jehovah ⁽¹⁴⁶⁾ (as I have before remarked in pages 241—244) who is the only true God; the God of Iſrael ⁽¹⁴⁷⁾; and yet we learn by the Scriptures, not only that CHRIST is truly GOD, and JEHOVAH (of which I have already produced many authentic proofs from Scripture in pages 216—354) but that THE HOLY GHOST is alſo JEHOVAH, and conſequently is included likewiſe in the Unity [...], ⁽¹⁴⁸⁾ of the Deity or Godhead!

[372]The Holy Ghoſt is Jehovah, becauſe it is he who "limiteth a certain day," ‘ſaying in David, To-day, after ſo long a time’ (ſee St. Paul's Commentary on the 95th Pſalm) ‘as it is ſaid, To⯑day if ye will hear HIS VOICE’ (the Holy Ghoſt refers them to THE VOICE of another Perſon, who appears by the Apoſtle's argument to be the Meſſiah) ‘harden not your hearts. Heb. iv. 7.’ In the preceding chapter the Apoſtle [373] tells us expreſsly, that it was the Holy Ghoſt who ſaid theſe words—‘Where⯑fore’ (ſays he) ‘as the HOLY GHOST SAITH’—‘To-day if ye will hear HIS VOICE, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderneſs: when your Fathers tempted ME’ (ſaith the Holy Ghoſt) ‘proved ME, and ſaw MY WORKS forty years.’ [But in the ſeveral accounts which Moſes has given us of theſe glo⯑rious Works and Tranſactions, we find them mentioned as the Works of Jeho⯑vah, and by St. Paul they ſeem to be attributed to Chriſt ⁽¹⁴⁹⁾; and therefore if the Holy Ghoſt was a mere miniſtering Spirit, employed only as an agent in Jehovah's Works with Jehovah's Power, and was not alſo truly Jehovah himſelf, he (the Spirit of Truth) could not have [374] called them his Works.] ‘Wherefore I was grieved’ (continues the Holy Ghoſt, ſtill ſpeaking in David) ‘with that generation, and ſaid, They do alway err in (their) heart; and they have not known MY ways. So I ſware in MY wrath, they ſhall not enter into MY reſt. Heb. iii. 7—11.’ Surely theſe are expreſſions of ſupreme Authority, which could not be uſed by any Spirit that was not truly Jehovah!

Again, in the 10th chapter of the ſame Epiſtle (15th verſe) we read— [...], &c.—‘THE HOLY GHOST alſo is a witneſs to us: for after that HE had ſaid before,’ ‘This is the covenant that I WILL MAKE with them,’ &c. The text to which the Apoſtle apparently refers us is in Jeremiah, xxxi. 33. where [375] we find, that it was Jehovah, who ſaid theſe words by the Prophet!

See alſo the two verſes preceding—‘Be⯑hold the days come, SAITH JEHOVAH, that I will make a new covenant with the houſe of Iſrael, &c. (Jer. xxxi. 31.)’ And afterwards in the 33d verſe (the text quoted by St. Paul as words ſaid by THE HOLY GHOST) the Pro⯑phet adds in the Name of JEHOVAH— ‘But this (ſhall be) the covenant that I WILL MAKE with the Houſe of Iſrael; after thoſe days, SAITH JEHOVAH, I will put MY Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be THEIR GOD, and they ſhall be my people.’ This text is expreſsly attributed to the Holy Ghoſt by the Apoſtle, and the next verſe is joined by the Copulative [...] (and) as the words of the ſame Divine Speaker—‘AND they ſhall teach no more every man his neigh⯑bour, [376] and every man his brother, ſaying, KNOW JEHOVAH: for they ſhall all KNOW ME’ [ſaith THE HOLY GHOST, this being a regular continuance (as I before remarked) of the words attributed to him by the Apoſtle] ‘from the leaſt of them unto the greateſt of them, SAITH JEHOVAH: for I will forgive their iniquity’ (and none but God can for⯑give ſins ^*!) ‘and I will remember their ſin no more. (Jer. xxxi. 33, 34.)’

This Promiſe is apparently to the ſame effect, as that which JEHOVAH had be⯑fore proclaimed by his Prophet Iſaiah, viz.—‘And all thy children (ſhall be) TAUGHT OF JEHOVAH. Iſai. liv. 13.’ To theſe texts, therefore, our Lord probably referred, when he ſaid to the Jews— 'It is written in the Prophets,' ‘And they ſhall be ALL TAUGHT OF GOD.’ ‘Every man therefore that hath [377] HEARD, and hath LEARNED OF THE FATHER, cometh unto me. John vi. 45.’ Thus, the being taught of God, is manifeſtly eſteemed by our Lord to be the ſame thing as hearing and learning of the Father, for he mentions theſe cir⯑cumſtances apparently to illuſtrate what he had before ſaid (in the preceding verſe) concerning the Father's drawing the true Believers—‘No man’ (ſaid our Lord) ‘can come unto me, unleſs THE FATHER, which hath ſent me, DRAW him, (John vi. 44.)’ ſo that Chriſt's reference to what was ‘written in the Prophets’ on this ſubject (eſpecially as he applies theſe Prophecies to the Drawing and Teaching of the Father) ſeems, at firſt ſight, to make againſt my argument, which was to ſhew, that the Prophecies here cited were the Words of THE HOLY GHOST, ſpeaking in the Prophets under the Title of Jehovah! But this is ſo far from being a real ob⯑jection, [378] that it is truly a confirmation of the former argument concerning the ſpeaking of THE HOLY GHOST, when we conſider, that the Drawing of the Father, and the Teaching of God, is effected only by the Spirit of God! For the ſame Apoſtle (John), who recorded our Lord's reference to the Prophets laſt cited, tells us in his Firſt General Epiſtle (ii. 20.) how this Teaching of God is communicated. [...].—‘And ye have AN UNCTION from the Holy One ⁽¹⁵⁰⁾, and ye KNOW all things.’ [379] (1 John ii. 20.) This Unction, or Anoint⯑ing, is generally underſtood by Com⯑mentators to ſignify the Influence of the Holy Spirit ⁽¹⁵¹⁾, and the Effect of that Influence is further explained in the 27th verſe of the ſame chapter—‘But THE ANOINTING, which ye have re⯑ceived [380] of him, abideth in you, and ye need not that any man TEACH you: but as the ſame ANOINTING TEACHETH you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie: and even as it hath TAUGHT you ye ſhall abide in him. (1 John ii. 27.)’ And it is manifeſt, that this "Anointing, which teacheth all things," is to be underſtood of THE HOLY SPI⯑RIT; for the Apoſtle Paul informs us, that the Communication of this Know⯑ledge or Teaching from God is by the Holy Spirit—‘Eye’ (ſays he) ‘hath not ſeen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which GOD hath prepared for them that love him. But GOD HATH REVEALED (them) UNTO US BY HIS SPIRIT: for THE SPIRIT ſearcheth ALL THINGS, yea, THE DEEP THINGS OF GOD. For what man knoweth the things of a man, ſave the ſpirit of man which is in him? Even ſo THE THINGS [381] OF GOD knoweth no man, but THE SPIRIT OF GOD. Now we have re⯑ceived, not the ſpirit of the world, but THE SPIRIT WHICH IS OF GOD’ [or rather THE SPIRIT OUT OF GOD, [...], that is, which pro⯑ceedeth forth ( [...], ſee John xv. 26.) "out of God," ſee note 132 in p. 357]; ‘that we might KNOW the things that are freely given to us of GOD’ (where⯑by it is manifeſt, that we obtain this Knowledge of the things of God by the Holy Spirit). ‘Which things alſo we ſpeak, not in the words which man's wiſdom teacheth, but which THE HOLY GHOST TEACHETH ⁽¹⁵²⁾; comparing ſpiritual things with ſpiritual.’ But ‘THE NA⯑TURAL [382] ( [...], or Animal) MAN re⯑ceiveth not the things of THE SPIRIT OF GOD,’ [How urgent and importunate ought we therefore to be in claiming, on all occaſions, the gracious Promiſes of Spiritual Aſſiſtance (ſee p. 200—202) as the Nature of Man is declared to be thus miſerably deficient without that Hea⯑venly Gift, the neglect of which is the firſt foundation of Infidelity and Scep⯑ticiſm] ‘for they are fooliſhneſs unto him;’ [even the things of infinite Wiſ⯑dom (for ſuch muſt be ‘the things of the Spirit of God’) are fooliſhneſs to the mere Natural Man!] ‘neither can he know (them) becauſe they are SPI⯑RITUALLY diſcerned. But he that is SPIRITUAL, judgeth all things, &c. (1 Cor. ii. 9—15.)’

The glorious Effect of Chriſt's Pro⯑miſes upon thoſe who duly claim them, is principally (as I have before remark⯑ed, [383] ſee p. 196—202) that we ſhall "partake of the Divine Nature!" But how can that Effect take place, if the Spirit of God, and of Chriſt ⁽¹⁵³⁾, (ſee page 357), the Spirit of the Father, and [384] of the Son, by which alone we can have communication with either ⁽¹⁵⁴⁾, is not really Divine? We are taught by a mul⯑titude of texts throughout the New Teſtament, that MAN by Nature is ca⯑pable of receiving THE HOLY SPIRIT within him; ſo that the Human Body is expreſsly called in Scripture ‘the Tem⯑ple of the Holy Ghoſt ⁽¹⁵⁵⁾;’ and therefore, if THE HOLY GHOST were not really and truly GOD, of the ſame [385] Divine Nature with THE FATHER (for there can be but ONE Divine Nature, as there is but ONE GOD, which I hope is already clearly demonſtrated, ſee pages 241—244) how improper would be the idea of comparing Man to a Temple? For Chriſtians are not only called ‘the Temple of God ⁽¹⁵⁶⁾, but expreſsly (as I have already remarked) the Tem⯑ple [386] of the Holy Ghoſt,’ as if the terms were ſynonymous!

Too many Temples, indeed, through the Depravity of Mankind, and the In⯑fluence of Devils, have been dedicated to thoſe, "which by Nature are NO GODS!" But that was only amongſt men —"who knew not God." (Gal. iv. 8.) But ſhall we conceive of the inſpired Writers of the New Teſtament, that they would alſo DEDICATE Temples to a Being, "which by Nature is no God!" For if we could ſuppoſe it true, that THE HOLY SPIRIT ‘by Nature is no GOD,’ the TEMPLE OF THE HOLY GHOST would be no better, in that one [387] reſpect, than Heathen Temples! And therefore, if we really believe the Holy Scriptures to be the Word of God, we muſt neceſſarily believe that THE HOLY GHOST is really and truly GOD; for otherwiſe we ſhould not have been re⯑quired by the Holy Scriptures to eſteem our Bodies as the ‘Temple of the Holy Ghoſt!’ And as it thus appears to be a neceſſary concluſion, that THE HOLY GHOST is truly GOD, it is equally a neceſſary doctrine, that he is alſo JE⯑HOVAH— "For who is GOD" (i. e. truly God) "except JEHOVAH?" ^† Pſa. xviii. 31. And therefore, though THE HOLY GHOST is clearly revealed to us in Scrip⯑ture as a diſtinct Perſon from THE FA⯑THER [388] and THE SON, he muſt neverthe⯑leſs be included in that One Divine and Eternal Being, JEHOVAH; and according⯑ly, in that ſupreme character, he revealed the Divine Will to the Prophets! Of this I have already produced ſome remarkable, and (I truſt) incontrovertible proofs, and therefore ſhall only requeſt my reader's attention to one more example of it. ‘Well ſpake THE HOLY GHOST’ (ſaid the Apoſtle Paul to the unbelieving Jews at Rome) ‘by Iſaias the Prophet unto our Fathers, ſaying; Go unto this people, and ſay, Hearing ye ſhall hear, and ſhall not underſtand; and ſeeing ye ſhall ſee, and not perceive. For the heart of this people is waxed groſs, &c. Acts xxviii. 25.’ But when we turn to that part of Iſaiah's Prophecy to which the Apoſtle refers us, as the SAYING of THE HOLY GHOST, we find it was JEHOVAH which ſpoke to the Prophet!—‘I heard’ (ſays the Prophet) ‘the VOICE of the LORD [389] (Adonai) ſaying, Whom ſhall I SEND? and who will go for US?’ (ſpeaking expreſsly in a Plurality of Perſons). ‘Then ſaid I, here (am) I; ſend me. And HE ſaid, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, (or in hearing) but under⯑ſtand not; and ſee ye indeed (or in ſee⯑ing) but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and ſhut their eyes; leſt they ſee with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and underſtand with their heart, and convert, and be healed ⁽¹⁵⁷⁾. Then ſaid I, LORD, (or Adoni) how long? And HE anſwered, Until the cities be waſted without inhabitant, and the houſes without man, and the land be utterly deſolate, &c. Iſai. vi. 8—11.’

Now the Lord, or Adoni, who then ſpake to Iſaiah, was repreſented to the [390] Prophet (ſee the beginning of the chap⯑ter) as ‘ſitting upon a throne high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple,’ &c. ‘and one cried unto another,’ (that is, the Seraphims mentioned in the pre⯑ceding verſe) ‘HOLY, HOLY, HOLY (IS) JEHOVAH OF HOSTS, the whole earth is full of his glory, &c. (ibid. 1—3.)’

Now, notwithſtanding that the Lord JEHOVAH is repreſented in this Divine Revelation as ſpeaking in the Plural Number ("who will go for us"), and that the threefold repetition of the Epi⯑thet Holy, in the proclamation of God's glorious Title, Jehovah of Hoſts, ſeems to correſpond with the above-mentioned Idea of a Plurality of Perſons being comprehended in that One Eternal Being JEHOVAH, which then revealed himſelf to Iſaiah, yet the Apoſtle Paul expreſsly attributed the Revelation to the Holy [391] Ghoſt, as being the Divine Perſon which then ſpake! ‘Well SPAKE THE HOLY GHOST’ (ſays he) ‘by Iſaias the Prophet, SAYING, Go unto this people, and ſay, Hearing ye ſhall hear,’ &c. Who then ſhall preſume to ſay that THE HOLY GHOST is not really and truly GOD; when it is apparent by the cita⯑tions already made, that the glorious Name JEHOVAH, which includes THE DIVINE NATURE OF THE FATHER, and OF THE SON, is expreſsly attributed alſo to THE HOLY GHOST?

Without a due ſenſe of this ſupreme Dignity of the Holy Spirit, we ſhould form but a very unworthy idea of the real Dignity of HUMAN NATURE, which (as I have already ſhewn) is not only capable of receiving the Gift, or internal Communication, of that glorious and eternal FREE SPIRIT ¹⁵⁸ OF GOD, [392] as a Principle of Action, but is abſolutely entitled even to claim that wonderful par⯑ticipation of the Divine Nature! to claim it, I ſay, by a written Charter of Privileges, which can never be taken from us (as God's Word cannot fail), he having bound him⯑ſelf to us on certain reciprocal condi⯑tions by an irrevocable covenant (as ſure as his Word) that MAN might be FREE indeed! We are FREE (I ſay) having now a free Choice, through Chriſt, to partake, if we will ⁽¹⁵⁹⁾, of the Tree of Life (ſee note in p. 310) from which our [393] firſt Parents were unhappily excluded in this world!

[394]But theſe glorious Privileges being granted to Human Nature only through the Merits of that "Son of Man," who voluntarily took our Nature upon him, we muſt always remember, that our [395] Title to the Benefits of the free Cove⯑nant, before-mentioned, is valid only when claimed in his Name, and for his Sake, as we ourſelves are otherwiſe to⯑tally unworthy of them; for he alone is "the Way, and the Truth, and the Life;" and ‘no Man cometh unto the Father, but by him. John xiv. 6.’

He hath, therefore, particularly in⯑ſtructed us how to claim the Privileges of Human Nature, aſſuring us by re-iter⯑ated ¹⁶⁰ Promiſes, tendered in the moſt urgent and affectionate manner, [396] that Prayers in his Name ſhall certainly be effectual; that is, provided there be no wilful Defect on our part; which [397] conditional Clauſe is always to be un⯑derſtood, wherever Promiſes of Bleſſings are delivered in Holy Scripture.

Let us therefore be mindful, ‘that the ſufferings of this preſent time, are not worthy (to be compared) with the [398] glory which ſhall be revealed to us, (Rom. viii. 18.)’ [...], that is, towards us, or reſpecting ourſelves; referring, probably, to that ‘Eternal Weight of Glory’ with which Human Nature is capable of being inveſted ‘after the ſufferings of this preſent time,’ as ſig⯑nified by the ſame Apoſtle in a parallel paſſage of another Epiſtle—‘For our light affliction’ (ſaid the Apoſtle) ‘which is but for a moment’ (i. e. com⯑paratively ſpeaking) ‘worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal Weight of GLORY! 2 Cor. iv. 17,’ This further Revelation of God's Will [va⯑riouſly expreſſed in the New Teſta⯑ment ⁽¹⁶¹⁾ concerning the ſure and moſt certain expectation, that we may [399] entertain, of being inveſted with ETER⯑NAL GLORY in the world to come, (if we [400] perſevere in the true Faith and Practice of Chriſtianity in this world); completes [401] our Charter of Privileges and Immunities, or, "the perfect Law of Liberty," which [402] THE ALMIGHTY has been pleaſed to tender to his Creature Man!

[403]—‘Who’ (then) ‘ſhall ſeparate us from the love of Chriſt? (ſhall) tribu⯑lation, [404] or diſtreſs, or perſecution, or famine, or nakedneſs, or peril, or ſword? [405] (As it is written, for thy ſake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted [406] as ſheep for the ſlaughter). Nay, in all theſe things, we are more than con⯑querors, [407] through him that loved us. For I am perſuaded’ (ſaid the Apoſtle to the Romans) ‘that neither death, nor life, nor angels,’ (that is, the angels of Satan) ‘nor principalities, nor pow⯑ers, nor things preſent, nor things to come, nor heighth, nor depth, nor any other creature, ſhall be able to ſeparate us from the love of God, which is in Chriſt Jeſus our Lord. (Rom. viii. 35—39.’

Here is a noble declaration of that "perfect Liberty," to which Chriſt has [408] reſtored mankind! that glorious Dignity of "Human Nature," which even the pooreſt and meaneſt perſons amongſt us (the diſtreſſed, the hungry, and the naked) are capable of attaining by Perſeverance in Faith, and Reſolution in obſerving and keeping, on their Part, THE CON⯑DITIONS ⁽¹⁶²⁾ of our reciprocal Cove⯑nant with God!

[409]Let us therefore (like the Apoſtle) approach unto the Throne of Grace, in full Aſſurance of FAITH, always remem⯑bering, that a SOUND FAITH muſt be the principal Foundation of our Pre⯑tenſions to the promiſed Dignity and Privileges of HUMAN NATURE, and that by Perſeverance in the true Faith, and a continual Renewal of thoſe in⯑eſtimable Claims, from time to time, while we remain in this world, we may be as confident as the Apoſtle, that ‘neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things preſent, nor things to come, nor heighth nor depth, nor any other creature, ſhall be able to ſeparate us from THE LOVE [410] OF GOD, which is in CHRIST JESUS our Lord;’ becauſe, through him, God has put it abſolutely in our own Power (whatever our temporary Afflictions and Sufferings may be in this Life) to attain an "ETERNAL WEIGHT OF GLORY:" 2 Cor. iv. 17.—‘For which cauſe we faint not’ (‘though our outward man periſh’) being fully perſuaded that he, who PROMISED, is ‘able alſo to PERFORM.’

The Defects of this Tract, wherever the Reader diſcovers any, are certainly to be attributed to the fallible Author, whoſe Name is prefixed; but whatever may ſeem praiſe-worthy, and inſtructive therein, to GOD ALONE!

"SOLI DEO, GLORIA ET GRATIA."