consistent with the unity of God; or else that it is irrational, unintelligible, and contradictory. But doubt. less something more than confident assertion is requisite to prove the doctrine of the Trinty to be inconsistent with the divine unity. The apostle speaks of the body, soul, and spirit, as constituting the same individual man; (though some perhaps may object to his language ;) if then a man may be three in one respect, and one in another; do we know so much of God, as to assert it is impossible that somewhat similar, but far superior, and more entire, both in the distinction and in the unity, should take place in his incomprehensible nature? And ought not men to speak more reverently and cautiously on a subject, about which we know nothing more than what God himself hath taught us; especially as much is spoken in Scripture, which so appears to have this meaning, that the most of Christians in every age have thus understood it? We do not say, that the Deity is three and one in the same sense; nor do we pretend to explain or comprehend how God subsists in three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; but we would humbly believe his testimony concerning himself, and adore his incomprehensible majesty.

One would scarcely have expected, that this doctrine should have been objected to, because it is mysterious ; when the apostle expressly calls it the GREAT MYSTERY OF GODLINESS. But indeed, till we can comprehend ourselves, it is absurd to object to mysteries in those things, which relate to the infinite God. The power of mind over matter is mysterious in the highest degree; yet our will moves our tongues and limbs continually, and we know not how; so that our own existence, as well as that of God, must be denied, if we admit it not. Mysteries are found in the productions of every plant and animal, which philosophy can never explain. The style of God in all his works is mystery; and shal we suppose that his own nature is not above all mysterious? Experiment is allowed to be the proper standard of our discoveries of the powers of nature; should not then the testimony of God concerning himself, terminate our inquiries concerning his incomprehensible

essence? For "can we by searching find out God? “Can we find out the Almighty to perfection?" If men object Christ's inferiority, as man and Mediator to the Father; or his growth in wisdom and stature ; we answer, that such testimonies, when compared with those which ascribe omniscience and other divine perfections to him, demonstrate that he had another nature, in union with that true humanity, of which such things are spoken. And "his delivering up the kingdom to “God, even the Father;" which has sometimes been objected to the doctrine of his deity,* only establishes the distinction between the absolute and everlasting kingdom of God, as Creator; and the mediatorial kingdom of Christ, as the divine Saviour of sinners. The absolute kingdom existed before sin entered; and will exist forever, after the mediatorial kingdom hath answered its grand design, and is come to an end; but the Son will be one with the Father to eternity, as he was in the beginning, before time was, or creation had taken place.

If any person should be convinced, by these plain arguments, of the truth and importance of this doctrine; I would conclude with warning him not to rest in the notion of it; but to apply it practically, by relying on Emmanuel for all things belonging to salvation, and by rendering him that love, and honour, and worship, and obedience, which are due to his name. The truth held in unrighteousness can only increase a man's condemnation; but they who deem it the life of their souls should endeavour to adorn, and promote the knowledge of it, by all suitable means; remembering that "the servant of the Lord "must not strive, but be gentle to all men; in meekness "instructing those that oppose themselves; if God per "adventure will give them repentence to the acknowl"edging of the truth; and that they may recover them"selves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken "captive by him at his will."+

* 1 Cor. xv. 24-28.

2 Tim. ii. 24-26.

ESSAY VIII.

On the nature and design of the mediatorial office, sustained by the Lord Jesus Christ.

THE mediation of Christ, between a holy God and sinful men, has an immediate connexion with every part of that religion, which bears his name; and all, who call themselves Christians, should use great diligence in seeking an accurate and adequate knowledge of this interesting subject, as far as they can deduce it from the sacred scriptures. It is therefore intended in this essay, to make some observations on mediation in general; to explain the nature and ends of our Lord's mediation in particular; to shew in what respects he, and none else, was qualified to sustain such an office; and to prove from scripture, that he is a Mediator, according to the import of that term, as here explained.

The interposition of a mediator in the affairs of men implies, that some difference, or ground of difference, subsists between the two parties; it supposes, that, at least, one of them has cause of complaint or resentment against the other; and that consequences, injurious to one or both of them, or to those connected with them, may be apprehended, if the controversy be not amicably terminated. To prevent these effects some person, either of his own accord, or at the request, and by the appointment, of one or both the contending parties, interposes; and endeavours, by his authority, influence, or good offices, to effect a pacification, on such terms as are supposed to be equitable, or at least not materially injurious to ei ther party; for if a mediator should take great care of the rights and interests of one party, and evidently neglect those of the other; he would be justly condemned, as acting inconsistently with the design and nature of

office. He should therefore behave, as the friend of both parties; accommodating the differences according to the justice of their claims, and in a manner as satisfactory to each of them, as can consist with equity and impartiality.

In some cases a superior in station or power may assume the office of mediator, and by authority induce the contending parties to accept of the terms proposed to each of them. In others, the end may be accomplished by argument, remonstrance, or persuasion; and this is nothing more than convincing both parties, that they ought to make, or accept of, such concessions, for the sake of peace and their mutual good, as are equitable and reasonable; and then inducing them to act according to the dictates of their understanding and conscience But sometimes (especially when one party is much infe rior to the other, and hath been highly criminal or in jurious,) the office of a mediator chiefly consists in pre vailing with the offended superior to accept of such con cessions and satisfaction, as the other can make; and not to proceed against him with rigour, though he deserve it; and if this can be effected, it only remains for him to prevail with the inferior, or criminal party, to make the required concessions. A mediator however on some occasions, out of great love and pity to the offender, may offer to make compensation at his own expense for the injuries done; in order that the other party may, without loss or dishonour, lay aside his purposes of inflicting deserved punishment.

Various qualifications are requisite for persons, who sustain the office of a mediator between two parties at variance, in any of the cases which have been stated; but our attention must principally be fixed upon the last; as it doubtless most accords to the interesting subject, which it is intended to illustrate. Should any one interpose, between a sovereign prince and his rebellious subjects, in order to prevail with him to shew them mercy; it is obvious, that he should himself be free from all suspicion of in the least favouring their rebellion; otherwise his interposition would render him the more suspected. He ought likewise to be a person of that rank and charac ter, or to have done those important services, which intitle

him to the confidence of his sovereign, and tend to render it honourable for him, at his instance, to pardon those that deserve punishment. Every one must perceive the absurdity of a criminal undertaking to mediate in behalf of his associates in guiit; nor could an obscure person, of indifferent character, and in no respect entitled to, or possessed of, the affection or confidence of the prince, attempt such an interposition without manifest impropriety. If a company of men, in such circumstances, were desirous of thus conciliating the favour of their offended lord, they would naturally turn their thoughts to one of his chief nobles, to some person that had performed signal services with great renown, or to his principal favourite ;* or even to his beloved son, if they had any prospect or hope of obtaining his good offices. And if such a mediator could be engaged in their behalf, with so firm and cordial an attachment to their cause, as to say with Paul, when he meditated with Philemon for Onesimus, "if they have wronged thee or owe thee aught, put that 66 on mine account ;-I will repay it ;" and if he really were competent to make good such an engagement; his interposition would have its utmost advantage for

success.

But no mediator can be fully authorised for his office, unless, by one means or other, both parties allow of his interference. Atleast his mediation cannot have its due effect, till they both accede to his terms, or plan of accommodating their differences. For if one party authorise him to propose certain terms to the other, as the utmost that he will yield; the whole must yet be frus-. trated and the dissention perpetuated, if these terms be pertinaciously rejected; except when the mediator acts also as an umpire, and compels the parties to accept of his prescribed conditions. There is also an evident propriety in a mediator's standing in such a relation to each of the parties, as to lay a foundation for his being considered as an equal friend to both of them, in all respects, in which their rank, or the justice of the cause, will admit of it; so that there can be no reason to suspect, that a

* Acts, xii. 20.

† Philemon, 19, 20.