out doubt all who reject this doctrine will perish everlastingly.

But

There is an opinion concerning Chrift which I have thought not neceffary to be noticed in these difcourses. It is the opinion in which a very amiable divine (the late Dr. WATTS) fettled after spending many years in perplexing enquiries, and taking much pains to keep within the limits of the doctrines commonly reckoned orthodox. It agrees with Arianifm, in rejecting the strange doctrine, as Dr. Watts calls it (fee his Solemn Addrefs to the Deity in the 4th volume of his works) of a Deity confifting of three perfons; (one a Father begetting, the other a Son begotten, and the third a Holy Ghost proceeding) and in maintaining, that the Saviour who died for us was a fuper-angelic fpirit, the first of God's productions and the limit between him and his creatures, and not a mere man, as Athanafians and Socinians fay. But it differs from Arianism in afferting a doctrine which feems even more strange than that concerning the Deity which Dr. Watts rejected. I mean, the doctrine of a Christ, confifting of two beings (one the self-exiftent Creator, and the other a creature made into one perfon by an ineffable union and indwelling, which renders all the fame titles, attributes, and honours, equally applicable to both. See Dr. Watts's Treatise on the Glory of Chrift as God-man. See Note D in the Appendix.

The

But fecondly; another previous obfervation which I would make is, that tho', in oppofition to the doctrine both of Tri

nitarians

The Arian part of this scheme (now generally diftinguished by the name of the indwelling scheme) gave fo much offence to Dr. Watts's more orthodox brethren, that the latter part of it could not fave him from their cenfures, or make him an object of their charity. This should have taught him charity to all his lefs orthodox brethren. But it had not this effect. Concerning Socinians he intimates (in the Preface to his book entitled Orthodoxy and Charity united) that the Scriptures did not warrant him to extend his charity to them; and that they are exposed to a sentence from which he prays that the grace of God may recover and preferve them. In a Poem alfo on Mr. Lock's Annotations inferted among his Lyric Poems, he makes an apology for invoking the help of Charity to find Mr. Lock in heaven, by intimating that he could not have done this had he not concluded from his explanation of Rom. v. 21. that he was not a Socinian.-How ftrongly does this fhew that allowances ought fometimes to be made even for uncharitableness? And what a proof is it of the unhappy influence of the prejudices to which we

are

nitarians and Socinians, I look upon Chrift as more than any human being, I do not presume to be able to determine the degree of his fuperiority, or to know any thing of the particular rank which he held in God's univerfe before his defcent from heaven. This is a point which we have neither means for discovering, nor faculties for understanding. The Scriptures are in a great degree filent about it, informing us only that he was before Abraham; that he had glory with God before the world was; and that, thro' his intermediate agency, God made this world. I fay this world, for you fhould never forget that when the Scriptures speak of the world they mean only this world, the facred writers having probably never carried their views farther,

or

are all liable, and which often contract and darken the best minds?—These prejudices would be exterminated, and all Chriftians would refpect one another, were the doctrine I have endeavoured to inculcate in the first of thefe difcourfes univerfally received.

or formed any conception of those innumerable worlds and fyftems of worlds which have been difcovered by the modern improvements in philofophy and aftronomy. Thofe learned men, therefore, feem to me to have gone much too far, who (though they deny Chrift's equality to his God and our God) yet speak of him as a Being who exifted before all worlds, and as at the head of all worlds. This seems almost as little warranted by reafon and Scripture as the doctrine which makes him the ONE SUPREME; and it makes the doctrine of his having humbled himself to death even the death of the cross to fave this world, almost equally incredible. When in the Coloffians he is ftyled the image of the invifible Deity, and the First born of every creature, the meaning is, that by the Divine power which he displayed he was a reprefentation on earth of the ever-bleffed Deity; and that by rifing from the dead he became, what he is elsewhere called, the Firft-fruits of them

that

that fleep, and the First-born from the dead of human beings.

Thirdly, There is one previous obfervation more which I would re commend to your particular confidera

tion.

Amidst all the speculations and controverfies about the perfon and offices of Christ, I wish you would never forget that the only object of religious worship is the one Supreme Deity. This, I think, a point of great confequence. There is no other being concerning whom we have fufficient reason to think, that he is continually prefent with us, and a witnefs to all our thoughts and defires. There is, therefore, no other being to whom our prayers ought. to be directed. It was to this Being that our Lord himself directed his prayers: And his language to us is, thou shalt worShip the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou ferve, Math. iv. 10. You shall ask me nothing. Whatever ye fhall afk the Father