Father are One," and that, "He that hath seen him hath seen the Father?" If these words do indeed imply the Deity of the Son, as One with the Father; the knowledge of God, which they who deny his Deity possess, cannot accord to the revelation made by the Son, but must be entirely of another nature. -The apostle likewise expressly says, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:" and can any man suppose this related only to a denial, that Jesus was the Messiah? If this were all that was meant, then none but avowed unbelievers were concerned in the warning: whereas it is evident, that the apostle spoke of those who se duced, not those who opposed his Christian brethren; and who, by denying Jesus to be the Son of God, drew them off from the true doctrine in that particular. As, therefore, they," who denied the Son, had not the Father;" the inference is unavoidable, that they, who deny the scriptural doctrine concerning the Son of God, whatever that doctrine be, have not the Father for their God and Portion. Many errors relate to different parts of the structure, the removal of which, though ill spared, may not wholly subvert it: but this concerns the foundation, and is of fatal consequence: "for other foundation can no man lay."t

The same apostle gives it as a rule, that the truth might be known, by its agreement with the doctrine delivered by him and his brethren; and that every tenet, however supported, must be a doctrine of Antichrist, which accorded not with what they had taught concerning Christ. "Hereby know ye the

* 1 John ii. 22, 23.

† 1 Cor. iii. 10-15.

spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God-and this is that spirit of Antichrist. We are of God; he that knoweth God, heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us-hereby know we the Spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."* According to this rule, all pretences to new revelations, and every philosophical reasoning, must be wholly disregarded as "springing from the spirit of error," if they contradict the testimony of the apostles, as recorded in the Scriptures; and if this error relate to the Person of Christ, it is of Antichrist. It may be allowed, that "by coming in the flesh," the reality of our Lord's human nature was maintained: but who could have doubted, that he was really a man, if it had been generally believed that he was no more than a man? If he could not have come otherwise than in the flesh, the apostle would hardly have made that an essential part of his confession. But the coming of the only begotten Son of God in the flesh, as the anointed King, Priest, and Prophet of the church, was indeed essential to his doctrine; and they who denied it, must reject, or pervert, all the rest. Yet, some of those heretics, whom John here so strenuously opposed, as the forerunners of the principal Antichrist, were the very persons, whom certain modern Antitrinitarians would persuade us to regard, as the only primitive Christians that retained the faith of the gospel in its original purity!

* 1 John iv. 2-6.

The apostle afterwards declares, that the princi pal testimony of God related to his Son: "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. For this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.-He that believeth not God, hath made him a liar, because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son, hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life." As the whole of revelation centres in this point, it is vain for a man to pretend that he believes other parts of it, whilst he rejects this principal doctrine. His opinion may indeed accord with the testimony of God in some particulars: he may assent to scriptural truths, because he thinks they may be otherwise proved; but if his own reasonings, or those of some philosopher, lead to conclusions opposite to the word of God, he hesitates not to treat that as a lie. So that in fact, such men, when they assent to scriptural truths, do not believe God, but other witnesses: for they treat him as a false witness, when he contradicts their preconceived opinions. It is therefore evident, that no belief of the Bible, or of any thing contained in it, can be genuine, whilst "the testimony which God hath given of his Son," is rejected. And this illustrates all those other passages, in which it is declared, that "he that believeth not shall be damned;" and that "he who believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him :" because

* 1 John v. 10-13.

it hence appears, that unbelievers treat the truth of God as a lie; and so exclude themselves from that salvation, which is in Christ Jesus, for sinners who by faith apply for an interest in it. For it is plain, that a man cannot believe the Son, if he refuse to credit what he says of himself, and concerning his personal dignity and excellency.

The same important caution is again inculcated by this apostle. "Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an Antichrist.Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."* The doctrine of Christ must certainly relate to his Person, either as God and Man, or merely Man. But if he that abode not in that doctrine, had not God; and if Christians were forbidden to "receive him into their houses, or bid him God speed," or at all to sanction his delusions; (though they might doubtless have relieved his urgent wants, as those of an enemy in distress ;) it must follow, that the doctrine concerning the Person of Christ is essential to Christianity, and a rejection of the true doctrine is an antichristian departure from the faith. And I appeal to every impartial man to determine, whether such language, if we had first used it, would not have excited the sneer of numbers, and an outcry of bigotry against us?-The reader must observe, that the texts, here quoted, are not brought as direct proofs of our Lord's Deity, (though

* 2 John 7--11.

many of them do prove it,) but to show that a right faith in this respect is essential to salvation by Christ: and they doubtless so far establish this point, that those who treat such questions as immaterial, will find it most convenient entirely to overlook them, or deny them to be the unerring dictates of the Spirit of truth.

II. The peculiar nature of our Lord's mediation, warrants the same conclusion. The office of media. tor, between two parties who are at variance, seems to imply, that the person performing it, stands in some relation to each party; is likely to take care of the interests of both, in an equitable manner; and possesses influence, either from excellency of character, dignity of rank, or services performed, to give weight to his interposition. Now, Jesus is Mediator between the great Creator and holy Governor of the universe, and his unholy, rebellious creatures; and it is supposed, that there are those things, in his person, character, or services, for the sake of which, the Father is pleased to pardon and bless all them in behalf of whom he mediates. But, not to anticipate the subject of a future Essay, it suffices to observe at present, that if the Father saw it necessary for the display of his glory in the salvation of sinners, that the Mediator should be Emmanuel, his coequal Son in human nature, God manifest in the flesh; and that it was wholly improper for any other person to sustain this office, or approach him in the character, except" his beloved Son, in whom he is well pleased:" and if sinners pertinaciously reject his authenticated testimony to this divine Mediator, and will regard