Footnotes

FOOTNOTES

ft1The attention of ministers, in choosing such companions as may not hinder their success in the ministry, is of so great importance, that in some countries the conduct of a pastor’s wife, as well as that of the pastor himself, is supposed either to edify or mislead the flock. Nay, the minister himself is frequently condemned for the faults of his wife. Thus, in the Protestant Churches of Hungary they degrade a pastor whose wife indulges herself in cards, dancing, or any other public amusement, which bespeaks the gayety of a lover of the world, rather than the gravity of a Christian matron. This severity springs from the supposition that the woman, having promised obedience to her husband, can do nothing but what he either directs or approves. Hence they conclude, that example having a greater influence than precept, the wife of a minister, if she is inclined to the world, will preach worldly compliance with more success by her conduct, than her husband can preach the renunciation of the world by the most solemn discourses. And the incredulity of the stumbled flock will always be the consequence of that unhappy inconsistency, which is observable between the serious instructions of a well-disposed minister, and the trifling conduct of a woman with whom he is so intimately connected. Nor are there wanting apostolic ordinances sufficient to support the exercise of this severe discipline:—Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the bishop or deacon be one that ruleth well his own house, having his children, and every part of his family, in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God? 1 Timothy 3:4, 5, 11.]

ft2Have you more joy when your preaching augments your income, than when you observe a wandering sheep conducted into the right way? Then conclude that you preach more for mammon than for Christ.—M. ROQUES.]

ft3Tradition informs us, that St. Paul, in the second journey he made to Rome, received the crown of martyrdom under the Emperor Nero, about thirty-five years after the crucifixion of our blessed Lord. St. Clement, the contemporary of St. Paul, speaks of that apostle in the following terms, in his first epistle to the Corinthians: “By means of jealousy, Paul has received the prize of perseverance. Having been seven times in bonds; having been evil entreated and stoned; having preached in the east and in the west, he has obtained the glorious prize of his faith. After having instructed all the world in righteousness, coming into the west, he has suffered martyrdom under those who command; and thus quitting the world, after having shown in it a great example of patience, he has gone into the holy place.”]

ft4It is highly reasonable that pastors should give evening instructions to those who have been engaged, through the course of the day, in their different callings. This season, whether it be in the most dreary or the more pleasing part of the year, is peculiarly suited to works of devotion. Such a custom might, at least, prevent many young persons from mixing with that kind of company, and frequenting those places, which would tend to alienate their minds from religion and virtue.]

ft5Percrebuerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis ut Judea profecti rerum potirentur.—SUETONIUS. Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum libris contineri eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret Oriens, profectique Judea rerum potirentur.—TACITUS.]

ft6 De Spiritu dicis, si dicis ardens igne caritatis.—Augustine.]

ft7 A ta foible raison, garde toi de rendre.]

ft8 See the original.]

ft9 A chanter la virtu j’ai consecre ma voix; Vainquer des prejuges que l’imbecile essence, J’ose aux persecuteurs precher la tolerance.]

ft10 Principes de la Legislation Universelle.]

ft11 Here is no mention made of our Lord’s descent into hell, because the expression itself is an equivocal one: the Greek word hades by no means answering to the English word hell. St. Paul was ever ready to make mention of every thing that respected his Divine Master; but where he speaks of his death and resurrection, he is not observed even to hint at this singular doctrine; and if, by omitting it in this place, we are judged guilty of a capital error, the great apostle himself was guilty in this respect, Romans 4:25; 8:34; 1 Corinthians 15:4. But if St. Paul and the four evangelists have made no mention of this extraordinary circumstance, it cannot certainly be considered as a fundamental article of the Christian faith.]

ft12 Vide, inquiunt [gentes] ut [isti Christiani] invicem se diligunt, et ut pro alterutro mori sunt parati. Qui animo animaque miscemur, nihil de rei communicatione dubitamus. Omnia indiscreta sunt apud nos, præter uxores. Apologeticus, chap. 39.]

ft13 Mons. de Voltaire, in his Philosophical Dictionary, attacks Christianity, under the name of Mohammedanism, in the following words:—”If it had been necessary to the world, it would have existed from the beginning of the world; it would have existed in every place. The Mohammedan religion therefore cannot be essentially necessary to man.” J. J. Rousseau was perfectly of the same opinion. “I deny,” says this writer, in his Emilius, “the necessity of receiving revelation, because this pretended obligation is incompatible with the justice of God. Should there be found in the universe a single person to whom Christ had never been preached, the objection would be as forcible on the part of that neglected individual, as for the fourth part of the human race.”]

ft14 Prejudiced persons, who, instead of considering the entire system of truth, run away with a part detached from the whole, will be offended here, as if our Church “damned every body.” But the candid reader will easily observe, that, instead of dooming any one to destruction, she only declares, that the Saviour finds all men in a state of condemnation and misery, where they would eternally remain, were it not for the compassionate equity of our gracious God, which does not permit him to sentence to a consciousness of eternal torments, any one of his creatures, for a sin of which they never were personally guilty; and of which, consequently, they can never have any consciousness.]

ft15 Those who oppose the doctrine of the fall, say that “weeds have their use.” I grant they are serviceable to thousands of people, who earn their bread by pulling the general nuisance out of our fields and gardens: but till our objectors have proved that thistles are more useful, and therefore grow more spontaneously, and multiply more abundantly, than corn, we shall discover the badness of their cause through the slightness of their objection.]

ft16 This was the case of several families in the author’s parish, November, 1770.]

ft17 This happened some years ago in this neighbourhood.]

ft18 Logicians will excuse the author, if he prefers the common unaffected manner of proposing his arguments, to the formal method of the schools. But they may easily try his enthymemes by giving them the form of syllogisms, thus:- First Argument. If the rod of God is fearfully shaken over this globe, the disordered habitation of mankind, it is a sign they are under his displeasure. But God’s rod is fearfully shaken over this globe, &c. Therefore mankind are under his displeasure. Second Argument. A pure and innocent creature cannot be born under such and such deplorable circumstances. But man is born under such and such deplorable circumstances. Therefore man is not a pure and innocent creature.]

ft19 Si virtus conspiceretur oculis, mirabiles amotis excitaret sui.—CICERO.]

ft20 This is the knowledge of God mentioned Romans 1:21. It is sufficient to leave without excuse those who do not improve it till they attain to the saving knowledge mentioned John 17:3; 1 John 5:20.]

ft21 Some will say that vipers’ flesh is useful in physic. I grant it: but is the poison of that creature useful? This must be proved before the argument can be invalidated.]

ft22 It is objected, that excellent remedies are prepared with antimony and mercury. But it is well known that the persons who use them only expel one poison with another; as the decayed constitutions of those who have frequent recourse to such violent medicines abundantly prove.]

ft23 It has been asserted that the short pleasure of eating and drinking makes amends for the severest toil. The best way to bring such idle sensual objectors to reason would be to make them earn every meal by two or three hours’ thrashing. Beside, what great pleasure can those have in eating, who actually starve, or, to just stay gnawing hunger, buy food coarser than that which their rich neighbours give to their dogs?]

ft24 God’s image disinherited of day, Here, plunged in mines, forgets a sun was made; There, beings deathless as their haughty lord, Are hammer’d to the galling oar for life, And plough the winter’s wave, and reap despair. ——YOUNG.]

ft25 Eager ambition’s fiery chase I see; I see the circling hunt of noisy men Burst law’s enclosure, leap the mounds of right, Pursuing and pursued, each other’s prey; As wolves for rapine; as the fox for wiles; Till death, that mighty hunter, earths them all. ——YOUNG.]

ft26 Some for hard masters broken under arms, In battle lopp’d away, with half their limbs, Beg bitter bread through realms their valour sav’d. ——YOUNG.]

ft27 Ingratum si dixeris, omnia dicis.—Juv.]

ft28 By reason, I mean that power by which we pass judgment upon, and draw inferences from, what the understanding has simply apprehended.]

ft29 Our earth’s the Bedlam of the universe, Where reason (undiseas’d in heaven) runs mad, And nurses folly’s children as her own, Fond of the foulest. ——YOUNG.]

ft30 A late publication in vindication of Pelagianism appears to me no small instance of this. The Rev. author takes his estimate of human nature, not from universal experience, but his indulged imagination; not from St. Paul, the chief of the apostles, but from Dr. Taylor, “to whom he acknowledges his obligations for several of the best passages in his sermon.” Passing over the exposition of his text, where he boldly supposes that our Lord meant, by the drawings of God, the natural powers of man; which is as reasonable as to suppose that when he said, “Without me you can do nothing,” he meant that me should signify ourselves:—passing this over, I shall just point out his capital mistake. He tells us that “all our faculties and powers are good and beautiful in their order,” (that they were so before the fall is fully granted,) “and tend naturally to the happiness both of the individual and the system;” and he adds, that “how weak soever and imperfect our intellectual faculties may be, yet to speak reproachfully of them in general is a species of blasphemy against our Creator.” If to expose the present weakness of our rational faculties, and show how greatly they are disordered and impaired by the fall, is what this divine calls “speaking reproachfully of them,” have not the best men been found guilty of this pretended blasphemy? How far the apostles and reformers carried it may be seen in the first part of this treatise. How he can clear himself of it, as a subscriber to the 9th, 10th, and 35th articles of our Church, I cannot see: and by what means he will justify his conduct to the world, in receiving hundreds a year to maintain the doctrine of the Church of England, while he publicly expresses its species of blasphemy, is still a greater mystery. Far from seeing that all the faculties and powers, by which this is done, are good and beautiful, I cannot help thinking some of them are materially defective; and though such a conduct may very much tend to the emolument of the individual, it has little tendency to the happiness of the system. For my part, were I to commence advocate for the uprightness of human nature, I would save appearances, lest Dr. Taylor himself should say, Non defensoribus istis, &c. But, dropping this point, I appeal to common sense, who is most guilty of blasphemy against our Creator; he who says God made man both holy and happy, affirming that the present weakness of our rational powers is entirely owing to the original apostasy of mankind; or he who intimates that the gracious Author of our being formed our intellectual faculties weak and imperfect as they now are? If it is not the latter, my understanding is strangely defective.—In vain does this learned divine tell us, that “the candle of the Lord, which was lighted up in man at first, when the inspiration of the Almighty gave him understanding, was not extinguished by the original apostasy, but has kept burning ever since,” and “that the Divine flame has catched from father to son, and has been propagated quite down to the present generation:” if it is reasonable to charge with a species of blasphemy those who reverence their Creator too much, to father our present state of imperfection upon him, I must confess my reason fails: I have outlived the Divine flame for one, or it never catched from my father to me. A fear lest some well-meaning person should mistake the taper of Pelagius, or the lamp of Dr. Taylor, for “the candle of the Lord,” and follow it in the destructive paths of error, extorts this note from my pen. See the objections that follow the twenty-second argument.]

ft31 If the reader wants to know the English of these words, he may find it, Romans 7:15.]

ft32 Men homage pay to men, Thoughtless beneath whose dreadful eye they bow! In mutual awe profound, of clay to clay, Of guilt to guilt, and turn their backs on Thee, Great Sire! whom thrones celestial ceaseless sing; To prostrate angels an amazing scene! ——YOUNG.]

ft33 Nos non corpora sumus: Corpus quidem vas est aut aliquod animi receptaculum.—Cic. Tusc. Quæst. lib. 1.]

ft34 Time flies, death urges, knells call, heaven invites, Hell threatens! all exert; in effort, all; More than creation labours! labours more! And is there in creation, what, amidst This tumult universal, wing’d despatch, And ardent energy, supinely yawns? Man sleeps; and man alone; and man, whose fate, Fate irreversible, entire, extreme, Endless, hair hung, breeze shaken, o’er the gulf A moment trembles; drops! and man, for whom All else is in alarm: man, the sole cause Of this surrounding storm! and yet he sleeps, As the storm rock’d to rest. ——YOUNG]

ft35 And is it in the flight of three-score years To push eternity from human thought, And bury souls immortal in the dust? A soul immortal spending all her fires, Wasting her strength in strenuous idleness; Thrown into tumult, raptur’d, or alarm’d. At aught this scene can threaten or indulge, Resembles ocean into tempest wrought, To waft a feather, or to drown a fly. ——YOUNG.]

ft36 Man hard of heart to man! Of horrid things Most horrid! Mid stupendous, highly strange! Yet oft his courtesies are smoother wrongs; Pride brandishes the favours he confers, And contumelious his humanity: What then his vengeance? Hear it not, ye stars! And thou, pale moon! turn paler at the sound: Man is to man the sorest, surest ill.— Heaven’s Sovereign saves all beings but Himself, That hideous sight, a naked human heart! ——YOUNG.]

ft37 See the note [marked †] page 281. (Note 16 above.)]

ft38 “I ever thought,” says Judge Hale, in his Contemplations, “that there is a certain degree of justice due from man to the creatures, as from man to man; and that an excessive use of the creature’s labour is an injustice for which he must account. I have, therefore, always esteemed it as a part of my duty, and it has been always my practice, to be merciful to my beasts; and upon the same account I have declined any cruelty to any of thy creatures, and, as much as I might, prevented it in others as a tyranny. I have abhorred those sports that consist in the torturing of thy creatures: and if any noxious creature must be destroyed, or creatures for food must be taken, it has been my practice to do it in a manner that may be with the least torture or cruelty to the creature; ever remembering, that though God has given us a dominion over his creatures, yet it is under a law of justice, prudence, and moderation; otherwise we should become tyrants and not lords over God’s creatures; and, therefore, those things of this nature which others have practised as recreations, I have avoided as sins.”]

ft39 See Pietas Oxoniensis.]

ft40 The reason which engaged the publisher of these sheets to preach to some of the colliers in his neighbourhood, was the horrid length they went in immorality. One of them, whose father was hanged, upon returning himself from transportation, in cool blood attempted to ravish his own daughter, in the presence of his own wife, and was just prevented from completing his crime, by the utmost exertion of the united strength of the mother and the child. When brutish ignorance and heathenish wickedness break out into such unnatural enormities, who would not break through the hedge of canonical regularity?]

ft41 In the last century an Irish bishop was dearly convicted of the crime forbidden in those laws, and suffered death for it.]

ft42 Kakia en fusei. Hence that excellent definition of true religion. Qerapeia yuchv, The cure of a diseased soul.]

ft43 Augrh gar sunopadov eriv Blaptousa lelhqen, Sumfutov. AUR. CARM.]

ft44 Gnwqi seauton.]

ft45 Hac conditione nati sumus; animalia obnoxia non paucioribus animi quam corporis morbis.]

ft46 Omnia in omnibus vitia sunt, sed non omnia in singulis extant.]

ft47 Vitia sua confiteri sanitatis principium est.]

ft48 Unicuique dedit vitium natura creato.]

ft49 Nam vitiis nemo sine nascitur, optimus ille est Qui minimis urgetur.]

ft50 Gens humana ruit per vetitum nefas; Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata.]

ft51 Cereus in vitium fiecti, monitoribus asper.]

ft52 Cælum ipsum petimus stultitia; neque Per nostrum patimur scelus Iracunda Jovem ponere fulmina.]

ft53 Ad mores natura recurrit Damnatos, fixa et mutari nescia.]

ft54 Wild error is often the guide, and glaring contradiction the badge, both of those who reject revelation, like Voltaire, and of those who indirectly set aside one half of it, like the Pharisees and Antinomians around us. See a striking proof of it. This very author in another book, (O, see what antichristian morality comes to!) represents the horrible sin of Sodom, as an “excusable mistake of nature,” and assures us that, “at the worst of times, there is at most upon earth only one man in a thousand that can be called wicked.” Now for the proof: “Hardly do we see one of those enormous crimes, that shock human nature, committed in ten years at Rome, Paris, or London, those cities where the thirst of gain, which is the parent of all crimes, is carried to the highest pitch. If men were essentially wicked, we should find, every morning, husbands murdered by their wives, &c, as we do hens killed by foxes.” According to this apostle of the Deistical world, it seems that the most intense thirst of gold is no degree of wickedness: that a woman, to be very good, needs only not cut her husband’s throat while he is asleep; and that it even little matters whether she omit the dire murder out of regard to his life or her own. What moral philosophy is here! Why, if the sin of Sodom is a peccadillo, a frolicsome mistake; and nothing is wickedness but a treacherous cutting of a husband’s or a parent’s throat; I extend my charity four times beyond thee, O Voltaire! and do maintain that there is not one wicked man in five thousand. I insert this note to obviate the charges of severe critics, who accuse me of dealing in “gross misrepresentations, false quotations, and forgeries,” because I quote some authors when they speak as the oracles of God; and do not swell my book with their inconsistencies, when they contradict the Scriptures, reason, and the truths which they themselves have advanced in some happy moments; and because I cannot force my reason to maintain with them both sides of a glaring contradiction. O ye Deistical moralists! let me meet with more candour, justice, and mercy from you, than I have done from the warm opposers of the second Gospel axiom. It is enough that you discard Scripture; do not, like them, make it a part of your orthodoxy, to murder reason, and kick common sense out of doors.]

ft55 Once indeed the Lord permitted the magicians of Egypt so to use their art, as to counterfeit for a time some of Moses’ miracles; but it was only to make the authenticity of others more conspicuous. This being the happy effect of the contest, when these ministers of Satan withdrew confounded, and were forced to acknowledge that the finger of God was evidently displayed through the rod of their antagonist.]

ft56 “Not many noble, not many wise, are called,” says the apostle: nevertheless, some of both, even at the rise of Christianity, openly stood up for its truth. Among the noble we find Joseph, a member of the great Jewish council, Dionysius, one of the judges at Athens, and Flavius Clemens, a Roman senator; and among the wise, Quadratus, Aristides, and Athenagoras, Athenian philosophers; Clemens, Arnobius, Ammonius, Annatolius, &c, men of great learning at Alexandria; and at Rome, Justin Martyr and Tertullian, both famous apologists for the religion of Jesus; the latter of whom, in the second century, told the Roman governors, that their corporations, councils, and armies, and the emperor’s palace, were full of Christians; nor is this improbable, since so early as St. Paul’s days, “the saints of Cesar’s household saluted” those of the Roman provinces, Philippians 4:2. How credulous are they who can believe that persons of such rank and learning could be deluded by Jewish fishermen into the worship of a crucified impostor!]

ft57 If the histories contained in the Old Testament were in general for the credit of the Jews, the love of praise might indeed have engaged some of them to join in a public forgery. But that book, of which they have always been so tenacious, presents the world chiefly with an account of their monstrous ingratitude, unparalleled obstinacy, perpetual rebellions, abominable idolatries; and of the fearful judgments which their wickedness brought upon them. Moses, who leads the van of their sacred authors, sums up his history of the Israelites, and draws up their character in these disgraceful words, which he spake to their face: “Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you,” Deuteronomy 9:24. And even David and Solomon, their greatest kings, are represented in those books as guilty of the greatest enormities. O ye Deists, I appeal to your reason, and ask, Would you die for, would you even connive at a notorious forgery, supposing the design of it were merely to impose, upon the world as Divine, a book that should perpetually stigmatize your ancestors, and fix horrid blots upon the names, for which you have the greatest veneration?]

ft58 It is remarkable that the wisest heathens, with all their philosophy, seldom attained to a full assurance of the immortality of the soul. Cicero himself says, “Nescio quomodo, dum lego assentior; cum posui librum, et mecum ipse de immortalitate animorum cæpi cogitare, assentio omnis illa elabitur.” (Tusc. Quæst. lib. 1)]

ft59 Pliny, a learned and prudent Roman governor, who was employed by the Emperor Trajan in stopping the progress of Christianity, wrote to him, that the apostates affirmed, the whole of their crime had been to meet before day, and sing a hymn to Christ as to their God. His own words are: “Affirmabant hane fuisse summam vel culpæ suæ, vel erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire, carmenque Christo quasi Deo dicere.”]

ft60 Some remarkable instances of this we have in the sacred books, published when the facts mentioned therein were notorious, and when some of the persons named were probably yet alive. After the resurrection of Lazarus, “the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him alone, all men will believe on him,” John 11:47. And after Peter and John had publicly cured the cripple who used to beg at the gate of the temple, “the rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem, saying, What shall we do to these men? For that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them, is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it,” Acts 4:5-16.]

ft61 God answers thus for himself in Milton:— —————Man will fall, He and his faithless progeny. Whose fault? Whose but his own? Ingrate! he had of me All he could have; I made him just and right, Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall. Such I created all the ethereal powers; Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell. Not free, what proof could they have given sincere Of true allegiance, constant faith or love, Where only what they needs must do appear’d; Not what they would? What praise could they receive? What pleasure I from such obedience paid, When will and reason, (reason also is choice,) Useless and vain, of freedom both despoil’d, Made passive both, had serv’d necessity, Not me? They, therefore, as to right belong’d, So were created, nor can justly accuse Their Maker, or their making, or their fate, As if predestination overruled Their will, disposed by absolute decree, Or high foreknowledge. They themselves decreed Their own revolt, not I; if I foreknew, Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault, Which had no less proved certain unforeknown. Young expresses the same sentiment with his peculiar boldness and energy.— Blame not the bowels of the Deity: Man shall be bless’d as far as man permits. Not man alone, all rationals, Heaven arms With an illustrious, but tremendous power To counteract its own most gracious ends: And this of strict necessity, not choice; That power denied, men, angels, were no more, But passive engines, void of praise or blame. Heaven wills our happiness, allows our doom; Invites us ardently, but not compels: Heaven but persuades, almighty man decrees; Man is the maker of immortal fates; Man falls by man, if finally he fails.]

ft62 Milton introduces Adam speaking thus:— Ah, why should all mankind, For one man’s fault, thus guiltless be condemn’d, If guiltless? But from me what can proceed, But all corrupt, both mind and will depraved, Not to do only, but to will the same With me? How can they then acquitted stand In sight of God? Him after all disputes Forced I absolve.

ft63 Milton introduces God speaking thus to the Messiah:— Man shall not quite be lost, but saved who will, Yet not of will in him, but grace in me Freely vouchsafed: once more I will renew His lapsed powers;—yet once more he shall stand On even ground against his mortal foe, By me upheld. Be thou in Adam’s room The head of all mankind, though Adam’s son. As in him perish all men, so in thee, As from a second root, shall be restored As many as are restored; without thee, none. His crimes make guilty all his sons; thy merit Imputed shall absolve them, who renounce Their own both righteous and unrighteous deeds; And live in thee transplanted, and from thee Receive new life.]

ft64 Creation’s great superior, man, is thine; Thine is redemption. How should this great truth Raise man o’er man, and kindle seraphs here! Redemption! ‘Twas creation more sublime; Redemption! ‘Twas the labour of the skies; Far more than labour,—it was death in heaven. A truth so strange! ‘twere bold to think it true; If not far bolder still to disbelieve. ——YOUNG.]

ft65 I say chiefly, because our Church gives thanks also for Christ’s general grace and mercy to children, declaring herself “persuaded of the good will of our heavenly Father toward this (unbaptized) infant,” through Christ, who said, that “of little children is the kingdom of heaven.” The truth lies between the error of the Pelagians, who suppose that unbaptized infants are sinless like angels; and that of the Papists, who affirm that they are graceless as devils.]

ft66 This is to be understood of a moral, and not of an absolute irresistible necessity; for faith never unmans the believer.]

ft67 Those doctrines pointed out in the ten above mentioned inferences, are 1. The alarming severity of the law; 2. The need of a deep, heartfelt repentance: 3. The divinity of Christ; 4. The infinite merit of his sacrifice; 5. Salvation by faith in him; 6. The influences of his Holy Spirit; 7. The reality of the new birth; 8. The necessity of a present salvation; 9. The zeal of believers for good works; and 10. The comfortable assurance which they have of their regeneration.]

ft68 Initium est salutis notitia peccati; nam qui peccare se nescit, corrigi non vult; deprehendas te oportet antequam emendes, Sen. Ep. 28. Et hoc ipsum argumentum est in melius translati animi, quod vitia sua, quæ adhuc ignorabat, videt, Ep. 4.]

ft69 This address is only calculated for serious persons, who cordially assent to the doctrine established in the rational demonstration of our fallen and lost estate. As other readers have been dismissed with the portion of truth that belongs to them, they are desired not to meddle with this, lest their cavils confirm St. Paul’s observation, “We preach Christ crucified, to the” self-righteous “Jews a stumbling block, and to the” self-conceited “Greeks foolishness.”]

ft70 This part of the address is almost literally transcribed from the Scripture, and it is designed for none but mourners in Sion, dejected sinners, who are backward to come to Christ, that they may have life. These want “line upon line,” and invitation upon invitation; and it is well if, after all, they are encouraged to come. As for full souls, I know they will loathe this honeycomb. But while they complain, “It has too many cells, and they are filled with the same thing,” some poor hungry hearts will say, “‘One thing is needful’ for us. We cannot have too much virgin honey: its sweetness makes amends for the want of variety. If the manna falls abundantly round our tents, it will stir us up to praise, and not to murmur. Fulness of the bread of life will not make us wax fat and kick like Jeshurun, but bless God for his rich profusion; and with the disciples, we shall even ‘gather the fragments, that nothing be lost.’”]

ft71 The laconic style of Tertullian has obliged me to add little parentheses, in italics, to render his obvious meaning plain to an English reader. However, that Dr. P. may not complain, I shall transcribe, from his own book, the original quotation:—Judaicæ fidei ista res sic unum Deum credere, ut Filium adnumerare ei nolis, et post filium Spiritum. Quid opus Evangelii sic non exinde Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus, unum Deum sistunt? Si Deus voluit novare sacramentum, ut nove unus crederetur per Filium et Spiriturn, et coram jam Deus in suis propriis Nominibus et Personis cognosceretur, qui et retro per Filium et Spiritum prœdicatus non intelligebatur. Ad Praxeam, sec. 30, p. 518.]

ft72 Ecce enim dico alium esse Patrem, et alium Filium, et alium Spiritum. Male accipit Idiotes quisquis aut Perversus hoc dictum, quasi diversitatem sonet, et ex diversitate separationem prætendit Patris, Filii, et Spiritus. Ad Praxeam, sec. 8, p. 504. I do not translate the word idiotes, “unlearned,” (as Dr. P. does,) but “idiot,” or “stupid.” (1.) Because this sense of it suits best the tenor of the whole book, and of this particular sentence: and, (2.) Because it is the primary meaning which Ainsworth ascribes to idiota, and which he proves to be classical, by observing, that Cicero opposes the word idiota to an intelligent and sensible person. Dr. Horsley has, by the same reasons, rescued another capital passage of Tertullian, which Dr. P. has pressed into his service by the mistake I guard against.]

ft73 Corruption, p. 13, and Disquisitions, p. 51.]

ft74 Thus far Mr. Fletcher had proceeded when he was called to his reward.]

ft75 “It is to me most incredible,” says Dr. Doddridge, “that when the Jews were so exceedingly averse to idolatry, and the Gentiles so unhappily prone to it, that such a plain writer as this apostle should lay so dangerous a stumbling block in the very threshold of his work, and represent it as the Christian doctrine, that in the beginning of all things there were two gods, one supreme, and the other subordinate: a difficulty, which, if possible, would be yet farther increased, by recollecting what so many ancient writers assert, that this Gospel was written with a particular view of opposing the Cerinthians and Ebionites, on which account a greater accuracy of expression must have been necessary. On the other hand, to conceive of Christ as a distinct (or separate) and co-ordinate God, would be equally inconsistent with the most express declarations of Scripture, and far more irreconcilable with reason. The order of the words in the original, (qeov hn o logov) is such, that some have thought the clause might more exactly be translated, God was the Word.”]

ft76 Fifth edition, p. 117.]

ft77 “The first born of every creature,—that is (says Bishop Pearson) begotten by God, as the Son of his love, antecedently to all other emanations, before any thing proceeded from him, or was framed and created by him. And that precedency is presently proved by this undeniable argument,—that all other emanations or productions came from him, and whatsoever received its being by creation, was created by him.” (Pearson on the Creed, p. 127, 2d edit. 1662.)]

ft78 “It is acknowledged by all that hwhy is from hyh or hwh, and God’s own interpretation proves no less, hyha rca hyha, Exodus 3:14. And though some contend, that futurition is essential to the name, yet all agree the root signifieth nothing but ‘essence or existence,’ that is to einai or uparcein. Now as from hwh, in the Hebrew, hwhy so in the Greek, apo tou kurein, kuriov: and what the proper signification of kurein is, no man can teach us better than Hesychius, in whom we read kurei, uparcei, tugcanei. Hence was kuroi by the Attics used for estw, ‘sit.’”]

ft79 As Misdrach, Tillim, on Psalm 21, and Echa Rabati, Lam. 1:6.]

ft80 As a farther and demonstrative proof of Christ being called Jehovah, compare Psalm 97:1, 3, 7, with Hebrews 1:6; Psalm 102:1, 12, 18, 19, 25, with Hebrews 1:10; Psalm 68:17, 18, with Ephesians 4:8; Isaiah 45:23, 24, 25, with Romans 14:11; and especially Isaiah 6:1, 3, 5, with John 12:41; Isaiah 40:3- 5, and Malachi 3:1, with Matthew 3. 3; and Zechariah 11:13, and 12:10, with Matthew 27:9, 10, and John 19:34, 37.]

ft81 Nay, the Lord Jesus is so far from upbraiding Thomas with idolatry on account of this expression, that he even commends him for it: for “Jesus said to him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.”]

ft82 I make use of the translation of Fran. Holland, A.M., rector of Sutton, Wilts.]

ft83 Of this the bishop produces numerous and indubitable testimonies in his notes.]

ft84 I had made, and thought to have added here, farther extracts from Bishop Pearson, as well as a large one from Bishop Bull’s Defence of the Nicene Faith to the same purpose; but as it would be little better than a repetition of what has now been observed, I forbear to insert them. Bishop Beveridge and Mr. William Stephens, have considered the matter in the same light. And, of late, Dr. Horsley, in his letters to Dr. Priestley, has observed that “three co-ordinate persons would be manifestly three gods.”]

ft85 To einai isa Qew. Pariari Deo, Tertull. Esse se æqualem Deo, Cypr. Esse æqualis Deo, Leporius. Thus all express the notions of equality, not of similitude; nor can we understand any less by to einai isa, than thn isothta¾ ison and isa being indifferently used by the Greek.]

ft86 Monthly Review for January, 1784, p. 61,—”To prove (say these gentlemen) beyond the possibility of dispute or evasion, that by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Justin meant Christ, we refer the reader to his celebrated apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, (pp. 93, 94,) in which this expression is not only applied to Christ, but even vindicated as his own appropriate and distinct character.]

ft87 Had it pleased the Lord to spare Mr. Fletcher, he had purposed to do this.]

ft88 Here there seems to be a chasm in the work. Mr. Fletcher uudoubtedly meant to have drawn more proofs or illustrations of his doctrine from the historical books before he came to the poetical and prophetical.]

ft89 The word Jehoshaphat means, “God is the Judge,” or the judgment of God.]

ft90 I consider this verse as it stands in our translation. But when I look into the original, I find that St. Jude prophesies of “certain men crept in unawares, who deny, ton monon despothn Qeon kai kurion hmwn Ihsoun Criston, our only Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ”—or, according to the best copies, which omit Qeon, our only Master (or Lord) and Saviour Jesus Christ.]

ft91 Though the aged and truly reverend minister of Christ, to whom these letters are addressed, is now no more; yet, as they were written and presented to him many months before his death, it is judged best to give them to the public in their original form.]

ft92 In proof that this is to be understood of Christ, see Vindication, vol. vi, p. 441, and vol. vii, p. 43.]

ft93 St. Paul is supposed to have written this epistle, as also that to the Ephesians about the year of our Lord 63.]