After this, philofophizing christians began to add to the pre-existent dignity of Chrift in another way, and at length, carried it much higher than those upon whom this apoftle animadverted with fo much feverity. They faid that Chrift was originally in God, being his reafon, or legos which came out of him, and was perfonified before the creation of the world, in which he was the immediate agent, and that this new perfonage was henceforth the medium of all the divine communications to mankind, having been the perfon who spake to Adam in paradise, to Noah, to Abraham, and all the patriarchs, who delivered the law from mount Sinai, and lastly inhabited the body of Jefus of Nazareth.

On this principle they explained many paffages in the Old Teftament, in which the word of God is fpoken of, as that of the pfalmift, By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, &c. making this word to be a perfon, diftinct from God, whofe word it was; whereas nothing can be more plain, than that by the word of God in this place is meant the power of God, exerted with as much ease as men utter words.

These philofophizing chriftians took great pains to explain how the reafon or wisdom of God could thus become a perfon, diftin&t from God, and yet God continue a reasonable being; but their account of it is too trifling to be recited in this place. However, it was far from being pretended, in general, that the doctrine of the divinity of Christ was such D a mystery

a mystery as could not be explained. For by mystery they only meant something of a folemn nature, which was unknown 'till it was revealed or explained. And indeed this is plainly the use of the word mystery in the New Testament; and it was also the ufual meaning of the word when the present tranflation of the bible was made; the mysteries of any particular trade being the fecrets of that trade, which yet every mafter taught his apprentices.

In this ftate the doctrine continued 'till after the council of Nice in the year of our Lord 325; but in all this time a real fuperiority was always acknowledged in the Father, as the only fource of divinity; and it was even explicitly acknowledged that there was a time when the fon of God had no feparate existence, being only the reafon of God, juft as the reafon of man is a part, or a property of man. One of the most eminent of the chriftian fathers fays, "There was a time when God was neither a father,

nor a judge; for he could not be a father before " he had a fon, nor a judge before there was fin."

So far were they from fuppofing the fon of God to be equal to the Father, that when they were charged, as they frequently were, with making two Gods they generally replied, that the fon was only God of God, as having proceeded from a superior God, which is the language of the Nicene creed; whereas the Father was God of himself (avlodi) by which they

meant

meant underived, which they held to be the prerogative of the Father only.

In all this time the jewish chriftians, who were not tainted with the heathen philofophy, maintained the doctrine of the proper and fimple humanity of Chrift. Athanafius himself was fo far from being able to deny this, that he fays all the jews were fo fully perfuaded that their Meffiah was to be a man like themselves, that the apoftles were obliged to use great caution in divulging the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift. He fays, that the reason why Peter, Acts ii. 22. only calls him a man approved of Gsd, and why, on other occafions in the courfe of that book and other parts of the New Testament, he is fimply called a man, was, that at first the apostles did not think proper to do more than prove that Jefus was. the Chrift, or Meffiah, and that they thought it prudent to divulge the doctrine of the divinity of Chrift by degrees. He likewife fays, that the jews of thofe times, meaning the jewifh chriftians, being in this eiror themselves drew the gentiles into it. Athanafius greatly commends the apoftles for this address in their circumftances. But what the apoftles fcrupled to teach, we should be fcrupulous in believing. Chryfoftom gives the fame account of the fituation of the apostles with respect to the jews.

It also clearly appears from ecclefiaftical history, that the unlearned among the chriftians were exceedingly averse to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ,

fore, obliged to suppose that Christ was a real facrifice. And though we, like him, fhould be called actually to lay down our lives for our brethren, 1 John iii. 16. which, in imitation of him, we are enjoined to be ready to do, we should be facrifices only in the figurative sense of the word.

It is true, that no man who is a finner (and all men have finned) can be juftified by his works. We all ftand in need of, and muft have recourse to, free grace and mercy; but it is a great dishonour to God to suppose that this mercy and grace takes its rife from any thing but his own effential goodness; and that he is not of himself, and independent of all foreign confiderations whatever, what he folemnly declared himself to Mofes, at the time of the giving of the law, to be, namely, a God merciful and gracious, longfuffering, abundant in goodness and in truth. Exod. xxxiv. 6. or that he requires any other facrifices, than the facrifices of a broken spirit, and a contrite heart, which he will never defpife. Pf. li. 17.

Can we wish for a more diftinct and perfect representation of the manner in which God forgives the fins of his offspring of mankind, than our faviour has exhibited to us in that most excellent parable of the prodigal fon; in which the good father no fooner fees his child, who had abandoned him, and wafted his substance in riotous living, returning to him and to his duty; but without waiting for any atonement or propitiation, even while he was yet a great way off, he

ra

20.

ran to him, fell upon his neck, and kissed him, Luke xv. The fame representation we fee in the parable of the creditor, who freely forgave his fervant, because he humbly defired him. Let us not then, my brethren, deprive the ever-bleffed God of the most glorious and honourable of all his attributes, and leave him nothing but juftice, or rather vengeance, which is exprefsly faid to be his ftrange work, Ifaiah

xxviii. 21.

It is impoffible to reconcile the doctrine of the fatisfaction for fin by the death of Chrift, with the doctrine of free grace, which, according to the uniform tenor of the fcriptures, is fo fully difplayed in the pardon of fin, and the juftification of finners. When, therefore, the apostle Paul fays, Rom. iii. 24. That we are justified freely by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Chrift Jefus, the latter claufe muft be interpreted in fuch a manner as to make it confiftent with the former; and it is far from requiring any force or ftraining of the text to do it. For it is only neceffary to suppose that our redemption (or, as the word properly fignifies, and and is indeed frequently rendered by our tranflators, our deliverance) from the power of fin, i. e. our repentance and reformation, without which there is no promise of pardon, is effected by the gospel of Jefus Christ, who came to call finners to repentance; but ftill God is to be confidered as the giver, and not the receiver, with respect to our redemption; for we read