grounded upon it? How much must the re formed churches themselves want reformation-Even Socinians have not kept clear of this great error of Christendom.* You

have heard that, in former times, they contended zealously for the obligation to invoke and worship Chrift, though, in their opinion, not a creature only, but a mere man.

Suffer me here to addrefs you in the words with which the apostle John concludes his first epistle-Little children, keep yourfelves from idols. Adhere to the worship of the one living and true God, and admit no other beings to a fhare with him in your adorations. That grand apoftacy among Chriftian's which is predicted in the new Teftament, confifts principally in their falling into idolatrous worship. This is that

fpiritual

* It is remarkable that Socinus, whofe zeal on this point, was fo great as to make him a perfecutor, at the fame time afferted that idolaters could not be faved. How happy is it for us, that even our own fentences here fhall not condemn us hereafter, provided we are fincere?

The learned Mr. Jofeph Mede, in the laft century, has given an intimation of "Some fin which the "whole body of the reformation is guilty of, but "which is counted no fin." And Sir Ifaac Newton, in his Commentary on the Revelations, fpeaks of all nations having corrupted the Christian religion, and of a recovery of the long lost truth which is to be effected hereafter." I can, by no means conceive,

fays

fpiritual fornication for which the Jews were so often punished; and which, according to all the best commentators, has given the name of the mother of harlots to the church of Rome. Avoid it then carefully and anxiously. You cannot be wrong when you follow, in this and other instances, the example of Jefus Chrift.

It is the conviction that the true object of religious worship is God the Father only, that in a great measure makes us Proteftant Dif fenters. Let us keep on this ground. It is impoffible we fhould find better. There are probably superior invisible beings without number. But we have nothing to do with them as objects of our devotions. Our invocations in prayer must be confined to that one self-existent Being who governs all beings. There are other lords, but their au thority is derived from him. There are other faviours, but they are his gifts; and of

thefe,

(fays an excellent clergyman and valuable writer) what it is these writers point at, except it be the fupremacy of the God and Father of all, which "they might poffibly believe to be a truth that has "been denied and loft by the general declaration of "the churches, that two other perfons are his equals. "This is fo far from being looked upon as a fin, that "it is a fign of orthodoxy, and is a doctrine that per"vades the whole reformation." See Reflections on the 15th chapter of Mr. Gibbon's Hiftory, &c. p. 73, by the late Mr. Henry Taylor, Rector of Crawley, and Vicar of Portsmouth, Hazis.

thefe, the first and best, is that Saviour who left heaven to deliver us from fin and death, and to lift us to a happy immortality. To this Saviour we owe an ardent gratitude; but the gratitude we owe to him is nothing compared with that which we owe to the God who gave him, and whom alone we know to be ever near us to hear and notice our prayers and praises.

Having made these previous obfervations, I fhall next proceed to fet before you fome arguments which appear to me to prove the two doctrines of the pre-exiftent dignity of Christ, and his having performed a higher fervice for us than any being merely human could have performed. But this I muft referve for fome future difcourfes.

SERMON

SERMON IX.

Of the Pre-existence and Dignity of Christ.

I JOHN, iv. 14.

WÈ HAVE SEEN, AND DO TESTIFY, THAT THE FATHEE SENT THE SON TO BE THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.

IN difcourfing to you on the dif

ferent schemes of Chriftianity you may re member that (after fhewing that we are all agreed with refpect to the effentials of it, and the information which it was intended principally to communicate, and which is most interesting to us as finful and dying creatures) I arranged the different fentiments which have been entertained concerning it under three schemes, each of which I stated, giving the preference to that which I did not

know

know how better to distinguish, than by calling it the middle scheme between Cal vinifm and Socinianifm.

My defign, in what is to follow of these difcourfes, is to state the reasons which feem to me to fhew that this fcheme comes nearest the truth. At the clofe of my last discourse, I made fome preparatory obfervations which I thought neceffary; and, with this view, I

First pointed out to your notice a coincidence which there is, on the fubject of Christ's dignity, between the opinions of Trinitarians and Socinians. Both make the Jefus, who bled and died on the cross, a mere man, but diftinguished from common men by a miraculous conception, and a par ticular communication of Divine powers. In oppofition to this doctrine, I have pro posed to state the reasons which lead me to believe, that he was more than a man, and that he not only was endowed with extraordinary powers, but had exifted, before his appearance in this world, in a ftate of dignity and glory.

Secondly; I defired you to obferve that, while I believe this to be the truth; I do not mean to affert any thing with refpect to the degree of our Lord's pre-existent dignity, this being a point about which the Scriptures are filent, except by saying, that God made this world by him.

Thirdly;