we suitably reflect on this DOMINION of our EverBlessed Saviour, we perceive the justness and force of the declaration, "No man can say, Jesus is LORD, but by the Holy Spirit ;"* q. d. None can duly honour HIM, in his august capacity as Lord and Head over all things; unless they are imbued with that vital, spiritual, and practical religion, which is the work of heavenly grace on the soul.'

66

The whole doctrine of the scriptures on this subject (and I appeal to the copious induction of evidence which has been brought forwards,) holds forth to us an ESTABLISHMENT of divine wisdom, righteousness, and goodness, for the recovery of lapsed mankind to holiness and happiness. In this constitution the Almighty Father is the First Cause and the Supreme Object of the whole, sustaining the legislative honours of the Divine character: and therefore he is peculiarly denominated GOD, "Or whom are all things," in the creation and sustentation of the universe, and in the redemption and salvation of the church," and we To Him," as our highest End; "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ;" also "the ONE God," "the ONLY God," and "the True God," in opposition to the fictitious deities of the world. On the other hand, the Son of God is the Mediator, Saviour, Redeemer, and Lord, in the actual execution of the eternal and gracious purposes, by his humiliation in assuming our

* Chap. xii. 3.

OF

nature, by his exaltation in that nature, and in his official capacity, and by the works of his Holy Spirit. Thus the Father is glorified in the Son, the Spirit of truth glorifies the Lord Jesus, and GOD IS ALL IN ALL.*

Upon these scriptural principles, the propriety appears of other expressions which occur in the divine word. As it is the great end of revelation to make known to man, so far as is necessary for the purposes of salvation, this glorious system of mediatorial grace; we see a reason for the usual style of the apostles, in making distinct mention of "God our Father, and Jesus Christ our Lord;" and for the declarations, "Ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's ;" and "God is the Head of Christ."+

The same principles also apply to another important passage: "God is one and one is the Mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus, a man, who gave himself a ransom for all [men.]"t The grounds of these particular expressions are manifest, in the correspondence of the terms with the argument of the connexion: q. d. Pray for all men because all without exception are accountable to one supreme moral authority, and have only one way of hope and salvation; to all men there is no other than ONE GOD, the Sove

* See John iii. 16. Eph. i. 3, 4. 2 Tim. i. 9. Rom. viii. 2-4, 9. John xiv. 17. xvi. 14. xvii. 4.

1 Tim. i. 15.

Rom. xi. 36.

I intreat the reader to turn to these passages. The exceeded limits of this Volume forbid their being inserted at length.

† 1 Cor. iii. 23. xi.3.

t1 Tim. ii. 5, 6.

reign, Lawgiver, and Vindicator of the honours of his law; to all men there is no other than ONE SAVIOUR, the Only Deliverer from the guilt of sin and the wrath to come: and the obligation to this duty is strengthened, from the consideration that this Blessed Redeemer is himself a man, (he was "made in the likeness of sinful flesh, and found in condition as a man,") and that which he gave as the (avrínuтpov) redemptionprice for all men, was his own spotless humanity, which alone could suffer and die.

Such is the evidence of the Apostle Paul: and here we close our allegation of Apostolic Testimonies concerning the Person of OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.*

* A recapitulation of the heads of argument in Book IV. in the same manner as at the close of the Second and Third Books, would have been introduced, had not the author conceived it to be superseded by the synthetic review which will now follow.

These statements have been advanced by Paulus, Schuster, Gabler, and others, who still call themselves Christian divines. Their theories have been ably refuted by two eminent physicians, the Gruners, father and son, who have shewn, on physiological principles, the certainty of the death of Jesus; and by many other German writers. See Kuinal in Libros Hist. N. T. vol. i. p. 799-802. vol. iii. 680-683. Heinrichs in Acta Apost. Excursus i. Among the many English authors who have illustrated the evidence of the facts denied by the Anti-supernaturalists, I would especially recommend Dr. Priestley's Discourse on the Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus.

On this subject I beg to repeat (see p. 266 of this Volume) that I do not charge these depths of impiety on the Unitarians of England: but I cannot suppress the apprehension that the genuine tendency of their principles leads in this direction. A learned and ingenious writer in the Monthly Review, to whom we are indebted, within the last few years, for many interesting articles on Assyrian, Persian, and Hebrew archaeology, has afforded very frequent and not obscure indications of entertaining these opinions. Such expressions as the following supply matter for very serious reflection. Speaking of the philosophic Hindoo, Rammohun Roy, the reviewer says that his “ plan for reforming the religion of Hindustan bears a close resemblance to that which Philo imagined for the reformation of the Jewish religion. The system of both these writers consists in adopting Unitarianism OR Pantheism, for their radical theology. In the evangelic German church Pantheism is already becoming the favourite theology, and is believed to be that of the Christian

Scriptures by very eminent and very learned commentators. Among the Protestants, Servetus, Bishop Berkeley, and Professor Paulus have severally acceded to this theology." Monthly Rev. June 1820, vol. xcii. N. S. p. 174, 176.

; ac

Bishop Berkeley would undoubtedly have disavowed with abhorrence this imputation upon his metaphysical system. With respect to the Brahminical theology, a gentleinan whom, without any disrespect to the reviewer, we may believe to be the better acquainted of the two with the Hindoo system and with the tenets of Rammohun Roy, writes thus: "From all that I have hitherto read and heard on the doctrines of the Vedas, I cannot but conclude that they do not teach the existence of One Supreme Being, distinct from the world, the Creator, Preserver, and Moral Governor of the world; but that they propose a kind of Pantheism, which is only a species of Atheism cording to which God is the only being which really exists," — creation is not a voluntary production of an intelligent and free volition, but a necessary energy of the divine nature, and the moral attributes and government of the Deity are denied. This system "flatters the natural pride of the human heart, by teaching man to consider himself as a part of the Godhead; while it delivers him from the fear of a Holy and JUST God, because it takes away his accountableness, and thus it opens a door to all vice and licentiousness. It is in consequence of this nature of the Pantheistical system, that, even after the full and plenary revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ, it has been embraced by many who, 'professing themselves to be wise, became fools.' Thus it was taught, about 150 years ago, by a certain Portuguese Jew, called Spinoza. A In modern times, the very same system has been proposed again, with some variations, by two celebrated philosophers of my native country, Germany." See the admirable Letter of the Rev. Deocar Schmidt to Rammohun Roy; Madras, May 4, 1818; in the Nineteenth Report of the Church Missionary Society; 1819, p. 330. In Mr. Schmidt's opinion, this extraordinary Hindoo does not adopt the Pantheistic impiety.

As proper to the subject of this note, I may quote a paragraph from another periodical publication, notorious for its habitually contemptuous treatment of serious religion, for its