the latter clause, " God, be blessed for ever. Amen." But where then is the meaning of the preceding ex pression, "as concerning the flesh?" Did ever a sensible writer use such language in speaking of the descent of any prince or hero? Does not the energy and propriety of the passage depend on the contrast be tween the clauses "of whom as concerning the flesh "Christ came," and "who is over all God blessed for "ever?" And does not such a change in the version render the passage unmeaning, or absurd?

Stephen's dying address to Christ has lately been considered, as the words of a man, in an extacy of 'devotion, or in the agonies of death,' and therefore not of much weight in the arguments; as if modern reasoners could better direct our faith and worship, than this protomartyr, when "full of the Holy Ghost," favoured with the visions of God, and replete with the light of Heaven!" Ye know the grace of our Lord "Jesus Christ: that though he was rich, yet for your "sakes he became poor."* What shall we say to these words of Paul? Could he, who was born in a stable, had not where to lay his head, and died on a cross, be rich before he was poor; if he did not exist before he became man?—The words of Christ, which his disciples thought so plain, "I came forth from the Father, "and am come into the world; again I leave the world "and go to the Father, "+ and many other declara tions which he made, "that he came down from hea"ven," so pressed the ancient Socinians, as to induce

2 Cor. viii. 9.

↑ John xvi. 28.

them to feign that Jesus went to heaven to receive his instructions, previously to his entrance on his ministry, as Mahomet afterwards pretended that he did. But modern Socinians have given up this figment; they seem conscious of their inability to maintain their old ground; and therefore they now intimate that apostles and evangelists were mistaken, and that several books or parts of the scripture are not authentick, or not divinely inspired. Thus they save themselves much trouble, by answering all our witnesses at once; and doubtless they act prudently in imitating the church of Rome; constituting themselves Judges of the Scripture, determining what parts of it are divine, and making their own scheme the standard by which it is to be interpreted: for neither of these systems can be supported, but by disregard to the word of God, or degradation of it.

I feel a confidence, that each of the arguments here adduced is separately conclusive: how great then mustbe their united force! Yet only a small part of the evidence can be contained in so brief an Essay. I would, therefore, conclude with observing that the Scriptures were written to recover men from idolatry to the worship of the true God: and that idolatry consists in worshipping such as "by nature are no gods." What then shall we think of all the texts here adduced, if Christ be not GoD? or what shall we say to John's conclusion of his first epistle, when, having mentioned Jesus Christ, he adds, "This person (75) is the true God, and eternal Life. Little children, keep yourselves from idols?"*

1 John v. 20, 21.

ESSAY VII.

The doctrine of Christ's Deity shown to be essential to Christianity: and some objections to the doctrine briefly answered.

WE are not in all cases capable of determining exactly what things are essential to our holy religion, and what are not: yet the scriptures most evidently declares some porticulars to be so; and I cannot but consider the doctrine of our Lord's Deity as one of these essentials, nor do I hesitate to say that Christianity itself must stand or fall with it. The greater decision is proper on this subject, as our opponents seem lately to have shifted their ground. They used to maintain, that' Christ's divinity was the master-piece ' of absurdities;-directly contrary to every part of 'natural and revealed religion, and to all the rational 'faculties God has given us;' that by making more

gods than one, it was a breach of the first command'ment;' and much more to the same purpose. This was a direct charge of gross idolatry, which surely must be a mortal sin: and as the defenders of the doctrine denied, and even retorted, the charge, showing

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

Dr. Priestley. Address to the Methodists in his preface to the Letters of the Wesleys.

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

I. There are several texts of Scripture which are decisive on the subject. Jesus Christ himself declares, that "the Father hath committed all judgment to the

Son; and all men should honour the Son, even as "they honour the Father: He that honoureth not the "Son, honoureth not the Father that sent him."* If the very end of his mediatorial authority, as the Son of man, were this, "that all men should honour him" with the same kind and degree of honour that is shown to the Father, (and this must be the case if our doctrine be true,) then such persons, as deny his Deity; refuse to worship him; and spend their lives, with all their ability, influence, and diligence, to draw men off from this faith and worship; do not honour him at all, but greatly degrade him; and therefore by the verdict of their future Judge, they "do not honour "the Father that sent him." So that the doctrine of Christ's Deity, if true, must be essential to Christianity.

It appears from Scriptures already referred, to,† that they have no true knowledge of the Father, who do not receive it from the revelation made of him by the Son: but how can that man be thought to learn

John v. 22, 23.

Matt. xi. 27. Luke x. 22.