forth Chrift's exaltation above the Angels after his afcenfion, fhews at length, exprefsly, the great truth we receive, by an application of the words of the Pfalmift: "To the Angels he (i. e. God)" faith, who maketh his Angels fpi"rits, and his Minifters a flaming fire;" but to the Son," thy Throne, O God, is for ever and "ever." And St. John clofes the proofs here felected, by the most express and purposed avowal of the Divine Nature of Chrift in the exordium of his Gofpel, in oppofition to thofe Heretics of his own time who denied it.

Thus, by a few inftances, and those not chofen with any particular reason of preference over very many of equal clearness and ftrength, is this fecond article of Faith fhewn to be fully and explicitly revealed from Heaven. Befide the Texts which I have thus omitted, I am also obliged to pass by the confirmation of them all by the teftimony of the Fathers of the Church, who inform us that fuch was understood to be the doctrine of the Gospel in the earlieft ages. But both thefe, as well as fuch Proofs as I have produced, have been often and ably brought forward to public view: fo that the doctrine, instead of being in the leaft doubtful, is, what I particularly aimed at fhewing, evident to the common understanding of every Christian who has it fairly propofed

propofed to him. It is indeed too often, alas! evident to men of plain sense, far more than to many others of the highest rank in literature; for the fame caufe, for which, as it is eafy to fhew, and has been before intimated, the reason of men has but little share in the oppofition that has been made unto it.

The only objection that, as I think, is applicable on this statement, is derived from a circumstance obfervable in the texs produced; namely, that they are gradual and progreffive. It is afked, why do we not meet not only with adequate but the most express declarations poffible of our Lord's Divinity in the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, or St. Luke, and in the very beginning of thofe Gofpels? Why are these rather reserved to St. Paul and St. John fo many years afterwards? It will perhaps conduce to make us think lightly of the arguments against our Faith, if the futility of this objection be expofed. Indeed, allowing it to be true that the affertions of these later Apostles are more direct and explicit, and we might fafely grant more in this argument, the answer strictly should be, "Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or "who hath been his counfellor?" Sufficient is it for us to know that the Providence of God hath ordained it fo to be. His reafon for fuch an arrangement, if it be communicated, is a

matter

matter of favour; and therefore, if withheld, as we cannot hope to know it, we are equally obliged to believe what he hath revealed without it. But perhaps, for opinions on fuch matters must be produced with diffidence, the reason may be collected from fome paffages in Scripture. We are therein told that it is the method of Divine Providence to impart instruction to men by degrees, accordingly as their knowledge, temper, and circumstances fit them for receiving it. Thus our Lord, as well as his Apostle St. Paul, teaches the Jews that the Mofaical Law was constituted after a manner fuitable "to the "hardness of their hearts," that it was involved with "the beggarly elements" of truth, and was as “a schoolmaster to bring them unto Christ." In another place He tells his own Difciples before his paffion, even under the Gofpel, after three years inftruction, that he had many things to say unto them, but they could not then bear them; nor until the Holy Spirit should have defcended upon them. § It would again be therefore enough to filence all objection on this head if we replied, that the Almighty had poffibly, not to fay probably, a fimilar reafon for obferving a gradation in this instance; for it would be incumbent on the opposer to

66

fhew he could not, which is, I think, clearly out of his power. The argument therefore might safely stop here. But we might perhaps not be mistaken if we were also to fuggeft, as we well may, that the Jews were at this period fo bigotted to the letter of the Mofaical Law, to the promises of a temporal kingdom under the Meffias, and confequently against the meanness of Chrift's appearance, that a direct affertion of this tenet at the commencement of the Gofpel, must have not only had the effect of rendering them all, even his own difciples, incapable of believing it, but would have exafperated them beyond all bounds, and have cut off at once all intercourfe between the Saviour and those to whom he was fent. I do not here speak from conjecture, but appeal to fact. The fuperftitious reverence in which they held the Incommunicable Name, and many other far worse motives did actually let loose their utmost rage against our Lord whenever he intimated his heavenly nature, and led them to direct attempts against his life. The neceffity therefore that appears of not fo frequently and explicitly infifting at first on this truth, both because they could not receive it while he was on earth, and because he would have been deprived of the means of converting the world by his instruction, is, I hope, in the last place, a fufficient answer to the objection, affording a reason why the tenet should

be

be more fully and exprefsly afterward infifted on by St. Paul and St. John.

The existence of what we term the Second Perfon in the Bleffed Trinity being thus declared in the Gofpel, it requires little proof to establish that of the Third. When there are once admitted more than one Perfon in the Deity, it does not appear that even perverseness itself can object much against the admiffion of another on any proper evidence. I fhall only therefore briefly refer to those paffages of Holy Writ, where the plain construction of the words supposes an Agent, and then represents that Agent to be fimilar and equal to our Lord; which is all the proof that needs to be afforded. The Holy Spirit is first then introduced in the New Teftament as the caufe of our Lord's birth. He next appears in the bodily shape of a Dove, and at the day of Pentecost in the form of cloven Tongues of Fire, as our Lord appeared in the shape of Man. He was also the Succeffor of Chrift, fent, as he was, into the world to compleat the instruction and confolation of Believers, which was then begun ;* "was, as Chrift, "not to speak of himself;" but "what he heard "that should he fpeak :" is brought in saying * Joh. xiv. 16.

↑ Joh. v. 19, &c. viii. 26, comp. with xvi. 7, 13. Exaivos, &c.

unto

1