refer us without doubt in the first place to the doctrine of the Trinity whence I have drawn the testimonies above ascribed to him; the importance of which makes the subject of that very book: and this doctrine indeed is held so fundamental by the Papists, that the disbelief of it, though but secretly entertained by a priest, is declared to annul the whole efficacy of his ministry, and of the sacraments themselves, not only to himself, but to all others, how innocent soever, to whom he should happen to administer them. But among Protestants, the distinction of fundamentals has been constantly applied to those doctrines alone which are clearly and precisely delivered in the holy Scriptures and how far this character will suit with the doctrine of the Trinity, I leave to others to determine: yet this, I think, we need not scruple to say, that it is no where expressly declared by any of the earliest fathers; and, as the most learned among the Papists assert, was never affirmed or taught by the church before the council of Nice.

Irenæus, speaking of the Mosaic distinction of animals into clean and unclean, says,. "The law foretold all these things figuratively, by animals denoting men: those which divide the hoof and chew the cud, it pronounces clean ; those which do neither, unclean. Who then are clean? Those who go on firmly, believing in the Father and in the Son. For this is the firmness of those who have the double hoof." Hence we see, that the fundamental doctrine, or the firmness of the Christian faith, in this early age was, to believe in the Father and in the Son. In the ages next following, many different opinions successively prevailed, and were held orthodox in their turns: but as soon as the Arian controversy began to disturb the peace of the Church, Constantine the Great wrote a letter in common to Arius and Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, the opposite chiefs in the dispute, in which he treats the whole question "as vain, foolish, and impertinent; as a dispute of words without sense, which none could explain, nor any comprehend; as the fruit of idleness and leisure misemployed, which no way affected the sum of religion; and that to quarrel about such trifies and subtleties, was childish, and below the gravity of Priests; wherefore, he earnestly exhorts them to put an end to so silly a contest, productive of nothing but quarrels and blasphemies among the people; and to

return to their former friendship and communion with each other."

This letter was sent by Hosius, a learned and venerable bishop, chiefly intrusted by the Emperor in the affairs of the Church, and is commended both by Eusebius and Socrates, as excellent, admirable, and full of wisdom; which shews what was the opinion both of the Church and the State with regard to this question, or parting point, as Dr. Waterland calls it, before the council of Nice.

But to return to our story of St. John and Cerinthus. If we allow it to be true, the conduct of St. John cannot be considered in any other light, than as an extraordinary case, or the effect of that divine power which was peculiar to the apostles, and ceased with the apostolic age; by which they were enabled to penetrate the hearts of men and discern the secret motives that actuated those early corrupters of the Christian faith. Epiphanius, as I have already intimated, declares it to have been suggested by a special inspiration. It is absurd, therefore, to propose an act directed by an extraordinary commission from heaven, as a rule of proceeding in ordinary cases: and it would make wild work among us, for weak and fallible men to revive and exercise a discipline which was grounded on infallibility; and to pretend to judge, with an apostolic authority, of the hearts and spirits of their fellow-christians, without the apostolic gift of discerning those spirits; yet this is one of the principal points which is pressed by Dr. Waterland, through his whole treatise on the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The same doctor, however, on a different occasion, where he is vindicating the morality of certain acts related of the ancient prophets and other pious men in the Old Testament, declares, "that such facts of an extraordinary kind, which were the immediate effects of a divine impulse, are not recorded as examples of common practice, nor to be warranted in common men, unless specially authorized in the same manner as those prophets were." The case is the same with regard to the apostles: the severe censures which they sometimes passed on Heretics and other wicked men, being the suggestions of a divine spirit, ought not to be drawn into precedent, but by the direction of the same spirit for otherwise the peace of the church would necessarily be disturbed by perpetual schisms and quarrels, and

its best members, through the clamour and rage of a few zealots, often treated as the worst. Every man's experience will furnish instances of the wretched fruits of this zeal, in the bigoted, vicious, and ignorant part both of the Clergy and the Laity; who, puffed with the pride of an imaginary orthodoxy, aud detesting all free inquiry as dangerous to their ease and sure to expose their ignorance, take pleasure in defaming and insulting men of learning, candour, and probity, who happen to be touched with any scruples, or charged with any opinions which they think fit to call Heretical.

The very learned and pious bishop Tailor, speaking of this very story, says, It is a good precedent for us, when the case is equal. St. John could discern the spirit of Cerinthus; and his heresy was notorious, fundamental, and highly criminal; and the Apostle, a person assisted up to infallibility. It is this character then of infallibility, which alone can warrant us in copying the pretended act of the Apostle; for unless we be possessed of this, the case can never be equal: and the sole inference which we can rea sonably draw in the mean time from St. John's behaviour towards Cerinthus, as well as towards the Thief above mentioned, is, that by his power of discerning spirits, he knew the Heretic to be a profligate and determined enemy of the Christian faith; and the Thief to be a good-natured youth, who, through the giddiness of his age, and the contagion of bad company, had been drawn inconsiderately into a rash and desperate frolic. But to propose this case, as a test or standing proof of the superior iniquity of heresy, above the grossest immorality; of its being more abominable than robbery, or in some cases, as we are told, than even felony or treason, is certainly dangerous to society; tending to turn men's heads with fanaticism, and to introduce violent and sanguinary proceedings in the affair of religious differences.

For what else is it that has given birth to all those murthers and massacres which Heretics have so often suffered in all those countries where this doctrine has ever prevailed, and to which they stand exposed at this day, wherever it still prevails? The effect is natural and unavoidable for if robbery and treason be crimes so intolerable to society, that it is necessary to punish them with death, it follows of course, that crimes more odious still both to God and man, must deserve a severer treatment, by the addi

tion of racks, tortures, and fires, which are all therefore actually applied in such cases, by every Christian nation, persuaded of the truth of this same principle.

Our divines indeed take pains to disclaim the charge of Popish cruelty, and profess to mean nothing more than the necessity of spiritual censures. They tell us that piety to God, charity to man, justice to ourselves, require the exercise of such censures that it is fervent charity, though expressed in an harsher way; since palliating medicines would be cruel, where corrosives are the only means of cure. But all this is a mere fallacy, and the very cant of the Romish Inquisitors; who make the same pretence of piety, charity, and justice, without a grain of them in any of their proceedings, and in the very exercise of such barbarities as are shocking to humanity itself.

Dr. Waterland, however, says, That divines may still desire that such offenders may live to repent, rather than suffer death or civil penalties. But what if they should not repent? Why then, they perish, he says, with their eyes open, and may take the blame to themselves. And in truth, all spiritual jurisdiction, whether in Popish or Protestant hands, must of course terminate in civil penalties, since it, would be contemptible without them, and unable to enforce its own censures. But since civil punishments for speculative opinions, if openly and professedly claimed, might be shocking to a free nation, it is artful to evade that odium, by beginning at the other end, and to establish the thing more securely, by seeming to disavow it. But it is certain, that there is very little difference between Protestant and Popish tyranny, if a liberty be not allowed to private judgment in all speculative opinions, without restraint, or fear of punishment on any other account, than of its being exercised unseasonably and intemperately to the disturbance of the state.

On the whole, it appears, I think, from what is said above, 1st, That this hearsay story concerning St. John and Cerinthus, is at the best of so uncertain and doubtful a credit, that we cannot reasonably lay any stress, or ground any point of duty upon it. 2ndly, That if we should grant it even to be true, it would be absurd and dangerous to the peace of the Church, in its present circumstances, to establish it as a rule of conduct to private and ordinary Christians.

Matt. xxii. 42: "What think ye of Christ ?" a Discourse. (Concluded from page 148.)

That he was the

3. "IVhat think ye of Christ ?" Son of Man. The term Son of Man," is repeatedly applied by Jesus to himself in the New Testament; but never would he have used such an expression in reference to himself, had he not been (as Trinitarians teach) a son of man and he could not have been a son of man, unless he had a man for his father. When Philip met with Nathaniel, he said unto him, "We have found him of whom Moses, in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, THE SON OF Joseph.' This was the uniform opinion entertained by our Lord's contemporaries; nor is there any thing in the New Testament which militates against it, but the fictitious stories prefixed to the Gospels by Matthew and Luke, and these are at variance with the genealogies.

All the genealogies among the Jews were kept in the male line. One of these commences with Abraham, and terminates with Joseph; and the other begins with Joseph and ends with Adam: but of what use is this record of generations, unless Joseph was actually the father of Jesus? The object of the writers was to prove that Jesus was a lineal descendant from David, which however has not been done if Jesus had not a human father; for the historians might as well have inserted the genealogy of any other person instead of Joseph's, were he not the real father of Jesus. The genealogy of Mary, his mother, is wholly unknown; so that we have not the slightest evidence of Jesus being a descendant of David through his mother; consequently, there is no proof whatever that those prophecies are fulfilled which foretell the Messiah's being the legitimate offspring of David. The genealogy or the miraculous conception must, therefore, be false but if you reject the genealogy, you destroy an essential proof of the Messiahship of Jesus.

Those strange circumstances which are recorded in the common version of the New Testament, between the 16th verse of the 1st, and the beginning of the 3rd chapter of Matthew, are entirely fabulous. They contain more diffi culties than are to be found in all the Christian Scriptures. It is evident that they were not contained in the original Gospel, nor in those copies used by the Ebionites, who