our blessed Lord, who gives believers inexpressible comfort in these words" Neither pray I for "these (his Apostles) alone, but for them also " which shall believe on me through their word.” (John 17. 20.) Now, if we believe in Christ, we must believe in him as he is set forth through the word of the Apostles; and there is nothing more clearly declared in their word than the preexistence of our Lord Jesus, and the inestimable benefits offered to mankind through him.

For many years I have studied the writings of these holy men with the best faculties of my mind, and thence I learn, that though it is impossible the Almighty Father can have an equal, yet hath he said of Christ, "This is my beloved Son," and hath declared him to be entitled to the worship of Angels. I believe it to be "a true saying, and "worthy of all men to be received, that Christ "Jesus came into the world to save sinners." (1st Tim. 1. 15.) I endeavour to lift up my heart in fervent love and thankfulness, for his gracious invitation-"Come unto me all ye that labour "and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matt. 11. 28.) "I believe that he will come to "be our Judge ;" and I pray him, as did his Apostles, to increase my faith, and to grant, that in all assaults of my spiritual enemy, and in my struggles against the evil dispositions of my nature, his grace may be sufficient for me. I believe that,

"For in that he himself hath suffered, being

66

tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted." (Heb. 2. 18.) And therefore I think I cannot err in praying him to afford me this succour.

Upon this point I give merely my own confession I presume not to dictate to others. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." It must be admitted, that he who worships the Father, in spirit and in truth, through the mediation of his ever-blessed Son, cannot be wrong.

It is objected, that, to deny the perfect coequality of the Father and the Son, is to acknowledge two objects of worship, and, therefore, amounts to a confession of two Gods, a greater and a lesser; that it savours of the latreia and douleia of the Church of Rome, &c. To all this I might make a short reply, namely, I learn my doctrines from the Bible. But we find that the most able, learned, and orthodox writers, acknowledge that the doctrine of co-equality was denied in the primitive Church, and was never introduced as an article of faith till after the council of Nice. Upon this point I shall appeal only to the authority of Dr. Thomas Randolph, Archdeacon of Oxford, and President of Corpus Christi College. As a divine, he was confessedly one of the most accomplished scholars of his day, and considered a powerful defender of the orthodox faith. From

his work, entitled "A Vindication of the Doc"trine of the Trinity," I extract the following passages

66

"The Son is, by all ancient writers, held to be, " in some sense, inferior to the Father; and that even with regard to his Divine nature." (1st Part, page 21.)

66

At p. 12, 2nd Part, Dr. Randolph repeats the same words, adding, "The title of Son imports a "distinction from, and some kind of subordination to, the Father."

At p. 13, 3rd Part, he gives the following extract from the works of Dr. Cudworth:-" Athana"sius rightly appeals to the tradition of the "ancient Church, for the Eternity and Divinity " of the Son of God, but not for such an absolute co-equality of him with the Father as would "exclude all dependence, subordination, and in"feriority."

Dr. Randolph concludes thus:-" I cannot "think that such a kind of absolute co-equality

was ever seriously maintained by any reputed " orthodox writer." And he quotes various ancient authors, confessing "a subordination in "the three Hypostases*."

How these admissions can be made to comport with the Athanasian Creed, is hard to be imagined:

* These extracts are taken from the 1st Edition of the "Vindication," printed at Oxford, 1754.

they seem, however, to remove those objections that are urged against the view I have been led to take of the subject, from my study of the Holy Scriptures.

It is surprising to see the glaring contradictions which are to be found in the writings of different Divines, when they treat of the awful subject of the Trinity. Mr. Jones (p. 61) insists upon the doctrine of absolute co-equality, "not under any "restrictions and limitations, which," he adds,

66

common reason, instructed by the Scripture, "disclaims and abhors, as an inlet to all sorts of "idolatry." Here, then, we see the learned Archdeacon, supported by a host of early writers, confessing a doctrine which Mr. Jones affirms " is an inlet to all sorts of idolatry!" Again, Our Church, in "The proper preface upon the "FEAST of Trinity," confesses "That which we "believe of the glory of the Father, the same we "are to believe of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without any difference or inequality." Whilst the learned Dr. Hales thus speaks of the Almighty Father, God, the fountain of all "wisdom, sovereignty, power, immortality, and

66

66

goodness; which in all other Beings, even in "the Son himself, are derived from the Father." Very many more of such contradictory passages might be produced.

I shall conclude my confessions regarding this

E

first head of Mr. Jones's work, by again declaring, that my hopes of salvation rest wholly upon the Lord Jesus Christ :-that I am perfectly satisfied "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved;" and that my earnest and heartfelt desire is, that my last breath may be spent in uttering the prayer of the first Christian Martyr, "Lord Jesus, receive << my Spirit."-Amen. Amen.