the human mind cannot take its range beyond the bounds to which the Creator hath limited it, or explore those unknown truths which Revelation only could acquaint us with. From the things that are, the mind indeed can afcend to the Almighty Creator, whofe workmanship they are, and by whofe providential power they are upholden and controlled; but there the mind muft ftop, it can afcend no farther. The nature and being of the Creator, otherwife than negatively, perhaps lie beyond all its reach, nothing can it discover with pofitive certainty concerning them. The poffible exertions and operations of the Almighty are involved in a cloud which our eye is incapable of piercing; when we attempt it, we only become thereby the more involved, and are obliged after all our refearches, to acknowledge, if we are honeft, that they have all ended in weariness of spirit, and diffatisfaction; for, the deep things of GOD what mind hath ever fearched out!

To the queftion of the officious and prying mind, how is it poffible that the Divinity fhould be fo united to the man as to become one with it, or without either itself finking into the man, or without the man's being abforbed in the Divinity? To this queftion I anfwer, that I know no more than the enquirer; it lies far beyond my reach: but of this I am certain, that with GoD all things are poffible; and, if Revelation has affured me of the reality of this

union, I can have no doubt of its poffibility. To enquire into the poffibility of a fact, when we have revealed affurance of its reality, is abfurd and irrational in the highest degree. The queftion with us is not, are the doctrines of the New Testament poffible? but, is the New Teftament a Revelation from GOD? if it is, he is the only rational Chriftian who receives it as such, and that only is rational Christi – anity which is in conformity with its doctrines. Let me not be supposed to mean, as fome will be forward enough to fuggeft, that we are to lay afide our reafon in interpreting the New Teftament: far otherwife; our reason is to be exerted in the feverest manner, that it may be interpreted with truth, that no false doctrines be fathered upon it, that it be interpreted confiftently, and fo as not to, contradict itfelf, and that the interpretation be fupported and juftified by the words interpreted. Let vos Tou $1500 Oou be interpreted according to the words; and let Vos imply the fame here as it implies when it is faid vos Tou avρwou, and then will my reafon tell me, ύιος του ανθρώπου, and so will every man's reafon tell him, (if he is not deranged,) that, by the fame rule by which the Son of Man is Man, the Son of GOD is GOD; and human reafon can never be more at variance with itfelf than when it denies it, fince no geometrical truth that ever was demonftrated is more certain than this. Again, let the words ἦν περιποιησατο δια του ιδιου αίματος, and ότι εκεινος ὑπερ ημων την ψυχην αυτου Anus, be interpreted according to the words, as you would

7

would interpret any other Greek writer, and thus plainly fignify, that GoD purchased the Church with his own blood, and that he laid down his life for us. Here, fuppofing the words to come from any common unauthorised person, after examination, you moft probably would reject them; but, in the prefent cafe, fomething elfe is, and firft, to be confidered: From whom do they come? and by what authority are they spoken? Are they, or are they not, the words of an infpired writer? Have they, or have

they not, their authority from the infpiration of the GOD of Truth? If they have, nothing upon earth can be more irrational, more diametrically contrary to reason, than to reject them as untrue.

But it will be

faid, by the words we are to judge of the inspiration; and, if they are impoffible, or unworthy of GOD, they are not the words of inspiration. True, where the infpiration of the fpeaker is not firft fufficiently eftablished; but, in the prefent cafe, the infpiration of the facred writers is fufficiently established by the miraculous powers which they had, and by the gift of tongues; therefore their infpiration is not to be judged by what they fay, but what they fay is determined to be true by their infpiration; because, what is fpoken by perfons infpired by the GoD of Truth can neither be impoffible nor unworthy of GOD, and is, and muft be, true. However, I fhall not enter farther into this matter here, as the fubject fhall be refumed: at prefent, we are to examine what proofs can be produced, from St. Paul's Epif

tles, that the Son of God is GOD. Of the foregoing paffages, from the Acts and St. John's Epiftle, I acknowledge there are various readings; but I know not that their truth ever has been established, nor do I well fee how various readings at this time of day tend to establish any thing, unless there is some palpable blunder in the copy received; for, admit the various reading in oppofition to the copy received, what is the confequence? The reading of the copy. received then becomes a various reading to that which you admit, and fo on ad infinitum, so that you will never be able to fix with any certainty. However, of the paffage which I am about to produce from the Epiftle to the Romans, I know not that there is any various reading; if there is, let it be eftablished (if poffible) in oppofition to the received text, but do not let the nothing-proving objection be urged against it, "that there is a various reading of the paffage". Romans ix. 5. St. Paul having moft pathetically lamented the fall of the Jews from the very great privileges which had belonged to them, fays, "Whofe are the fathers, and of whom "CHRIST came according to the flesh, who is over

all, GOD bleffed for ever, Amen." O V ETTL πάντων Θεος ευλογητός εις τους αιώνας, Αμην. The great Mr. Locke interprets thefe words thus, in his paraphrase, "Who is over all, GoD be bleffed for "ever, Amen ;" and for what reafon he thus interprets them was beft known to himself, for I do not remember that he affigns any reafons at all for it. If

he

he thought himself juftified in the interpretation by the various reading of any copy different from ours, he fhould have faid fo, for moft affuredly O-05 εuλ0γητες does not fignify "GOD be bleffed;" and therefore his interpretation is altogether unwarrantable and falfe.

To a mind that is unwarped by prejudice, there appears to be internal evidence in the text (as we now have it) of its being the genuine and true reading; for, the Apoftle fays, & ŵy ô Xp:505 TO Xαta σαρκα, "Of whom CHRIST came according to the flesh." In other words, the affertion is, that the derivation of CHRIST from the Jews was only according to the flesh, and confequently it implies, that he had a derivation that was not according to the flesh. Now, as the Apoftle carries on the sentence ftill speaking of CHRIST, it naturally required that he fhould tell us what that derivation was, that is, what CHRIST was not according to the flesh. But, wY ETTL wavτw, without the remaining part of the fentence, tells us nothing at all of the kind; nothing that can be fet in oppofition to the to nara σagua, inasmuch as CHRIST as man is exalted to the right hand of GOD, and all power given to him; fo that ftill the queftion occurs, What was he? but not xara σapua. If we follow our text, the Apoftle tells us clearly and explicitly, " he was God blefled for ever;" whereas, alter the text, and read suλoyntos & Geos, and, while the Apoftle feems to tell us fomething, he in fact tells nothing at all, as he leaves us ftill uninformed

G 2

ων επι

what