in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity. According to our present hypothefis, a vindication of this kind had been absolutely fuperfluous; and though we cannot wonder to obferve a point of this confequence frequently mentioned, or alluded to in thefe writings, yet it would be very unreasonable to expect to find it methodically or fyftematically taught.

The grand principle of the leading oppugners of the doctrine under confideration is, that the only thing required of Chriftians to be believed with regard to the Person of Jefus Chrift, is, that he was the Meffiah, the Perfon promised and sent by God to redeem men from that death which they were inevitably appointed to as defcendants of Adam; and that the Meffiah, and the Chrift, and the king of Ifrael, and the Son of God, are terms or titles in Scripture abfolutely denoting one and the fame thing. I need not tell you, that this is the favourite tenet of Mr. Locke in his treatife on the Reafonableness of Chriflianity, as delivered in Scripture.

Now

Now we shall willingly admit, that the Apoftles themselves were believers under this idea mostly, during our Saviour's refidence upon earth; as 'tis certain, they had not the whole mystery of the Divine Will, the grand fcheme of man's redemption, clearly and fully made known to them before our Lord's Afcenfion into heaven. I have many things to fay unto you, he fays to them, but ye cannot bear them now;* &c. and in saying this he had most probably an eye to the mystery of the Gospel. For though he took frequent occafions to affert and prefignify, as I may fay, his truly Divine Nature, either directly, or by neceffary implication, and could not but have been understood fo to have done by his disciples, and by the Jews, who fought to ftone him on that very account, yet, in the days of his flesh, many circumstances concurred to shake, or rather to overturn the faith of his followers, with refpect to this great article. This is plain enough from the tenor of the evangelical history. It would be ridiculous to fuppofe that the Apostles could believe their Mafter to be the Son of

God in the highest fenfe, or even to be the redeemer of Ifrael in any fenfe, when they all forfook him and fled. At the melancholy crifis I refer to, they conceived no doubt very different notions of their Lord from what they had once entertained of him, and afterwards did, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, or to full effect, by his refurrection from the dead.*

The fact is, the scheme of human redemption by Jefus Chrift, the only-begotten Son of God, in the ftricteft fenfe, was opened gradually, and propounded to the world as it were article by article. At first it must neceffarily have been fufficient to have believed that fejus was the Chrift, the Messiah, or the Son of God, merely as executing a divine commiffion, &c; his refurrection, afcenfion, and exaltation to the right hand of the Majefty on high, being fubfequent points of faith; and accordingly we read of many that believed on him at different times, and in different places, long before the converfion of

*Rom. i. 4.

the

*

the three thousand on the day of Pentecoft, whom we cannot but confider as believers in a much higher fenfe. The faith of Chriftians at that memorable period, and ever fince, cannot with the leaft colour of reafon be ascertained, or is to be measured by what is declared to be faith in particular instances recorded in the Gospels. The faith which made the woman whole, who had an issue of blood, and the faith that faved, i. e. restored to fight the blind man near Jericho, † could not be that faith, the mystery of which St. Paul requires Deacons to hold in a pure confcience. In fhort, our Saviour's actual refurrection, by virtue of his own as well as his Father's power, (as we fhall presently fee,) cleared up a thousand difficulties in a moment, and amounted to a full demonftration of his Divinity. From a thorough conviction of this no doubt it was that his Difciples worshipped him; and St. Thomas in ticular burst into that rapture of acknowlegement, My Lord, and God! Though therefore the Meffiah, or the

my

par

Christ, be not

*Luke viii. 43.

+Ibid. xviii. 35.

1 Tim. iii. 9.

F

unfrequently

be

unfrequently called the Son of God, as a perfon fent from God, as a teacher, a prophet, or deliverer, &c. (as many even created beings, angels, &c. and men in general are called Sons of God in certain refpects,) yet we infift that this appellation belongs peculiarly to Jefus, the author of our faith, as a Divine Perfon likewife; and that he is fo called with reference to his nature, as well as to his offices. In fome paffages of Scripture perhaps, the precise import of this title may controvertible; as when devils and unclean Spirits call our Saviour the Son of God, and the Holy One of God; and when Peter styles him the Son of the living God. In answer to our Lord's question, whom say ye that I am? the difciples, according to St. Mark, replied by the mouth of Peter, thou art the Chrift. In other places the fignificance of the title in question is discoverable by the context; as when Nathaniel addreffes our Saviour in the character of the Son of God, the king of Ifrael. But why must all this affect the sense of any one paffage wherein the appellation is given for reasons infinitely fuperiour? The

Holy