Holy Ghoft fhall come upon thee, and the power of the Higheft fhall overshadow thee; therefore alfo that Holy thing which shall be born of thee Shall be called the Son of God.* (1) Could ftronger terms, be devifed to exprefs the affumption of the human nature by the Divine? Is it not perfectly reasonable to conclude, that the facred penmen often make mention of the Son of God with an eye to this mysterious and ineffable incarnation? And is it not certain that the person whom St. John, at the end of his Gospel, calls the Chrift, the Son of God, is the fame with him whom, at the beginning of it, he styles the Word that was with God, and was God? And if so, is not the sense of the latter paffage determinable by the preceding? Neverthelefs the great Philofopher above mentioned. leaves the introduction to this Gospel, and other paffages in it of equal import, entirely unnoticed, as though it had no connection with his argument; which is a piece of difingenuousness that, one cannot avoid saying, did little credit to his caufe, or to himself.

We shall be enabled, by fuch confiderations as these, to put the true conftruction on the title of the Son of God, in most, if not all the places where it occurs in the Epistles; naturally taking into the account the many clear and express proofs of our Lord's Divinity which are cited from them. Of some of the most striking of these proofs, among other particulars, we fhall for fatisfactionfake take a review in proper time. What Mr. Locke has adduced on this fubject with a purpose to invalidate these proofs in general, will, I am confident, be utterly overthrown by the force of the following confiderations; viz. that the Epistles are a part of the New Tefment, and as effential a part as the Gospels; were like them, as was observed, written occafionally, and after our Saviour's Afcenfion, &c; that St. Paul, e. g. was as much a teacher of the Gospel, an infpired Apostle, as St. Matthew, or any other Apostle who has historically recorded the actions, words, or doctrine of Jefus Chrift; and that a Creed, or system of faith should have its foundation in these Epiftles together with the other Scrip

tures.

tures. The truth is, St. John in his Epiftles afferts the fame doctrine of our Lord's Divinity as in his Gofpel. By Mr. Locke's way of proceeding, viz. arbitrarily admitting, or rejecting Scripture, we may mould Christianity into what form we pleafe; and to this way of proceeding, among other causes, we are to afcribe the various Schifms, and Herefies, which have fo long, and fo deplorably divided the Chriftian world.

We may now, I imagine, fairly date the reception of the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity from his refurrection; and we will next fee whether the fubfequent accounts we have of the propagation of the Gospel be not entirely uniform and confiftent upon this hypothefis, at the fame time that they open to us the whole Trinitarian fyftem.

Let it be observed then, that the first recorded prayer we meet with is that of the Apostles after the Afcenfion, in which the address is made immediately to our Lord himself, that he would be pleased to shew whether

F 3

whether he had chofen Jofeph, or Matthias, to supply the place vacated by Judas the traitor, whom he had originally chosen with the eleven Apostles. Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, fhew whether of these two thou haft chofen. * It is, I believe, generally agreed that this addrefs was made to Jefus Chrift, and if fo, this attribution of omniscience to him is fure as ftrong an argument of his Divinity as any one thing which can be produced in demonstration of it. The afcription is to me on any other foot unaccountable. It is indeed true, that the Apoftles had not yet a thorough infight into the evangelical mystery, nor had got perfectly clear of the prejudices and notions, respecting the Meffiab, which they had imbibed in common with their countrymen : in confequence of which we find them afking our Lord, even after his refurrection, and after he had spoken to them, more or less explicitly, of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God, whether he would at that time reftore again the kingdom to Ifrael? But that they put this question to

*Acts i. 24.

him as to one who was able to effect fuch restoration by his own inherent divine power, or, in other words effentially partook of the divine nature, muft furely be concluded from this confideration; that they could not poffibly now entertain the least doubt but that all his declarations and affurances to them would be verified to a tittle; and that as he came forth from the Father, and was come into the world, fo he would foon leave the world, and go to the Father; and be glorified with that glory which he had with the Father, before the world was. The case appears plainly to have been this they did not yet comprehend the whole evangelical plan in the concurrence of three Divine Perfons, in " glory equal, in majefty coeternal;" they did not perfectly conceive all the things pertaining to Chrift's spiritual kingdom; the kingdom of God in the fulleft and moft exalted fenfe, of which he had been speaking to them allufively forty days, and with regard to which he may be supposed to have before promised them, that the Spirit of truth, whom he would send unto them from the Father, fhould guide them into