right of merely declaring this forgiveness? But how can this be a natural concomitant of royalty, without the right of actually forgiving? We have not heard of any prince pluming himself on the poffeffion of "this high office," as our author calls it. Did he talk to a temporal monarch, of his "prerogative of declaring the forgiveness of fin;" he would certainly apprehend that the good man miftook him for His Holiness. The only thing that could make him hefitate, would be the meanness of the afcription, which even the Servant of the fervants of Jefus would reckon an infult to his dignity.

But according to the nature of the expreffion, without infifting on its aukward fingularity, evidently meant to ferve the present purpose, the prerogative of the King of kings must be unspeakably inferior to that of many earthly potentates, who have the right of actually forgiving crimes against the state. But our author exhibits the King of Zion as a mere herald. He referves no other honour for him than that of proclamation. However, this declaratory function may be greater than we apprehend. For Jefus is" af"fifted" not only "by divine wisdom and discernment," but" by divine power," in the exercise of " this high of"fice." Whatever use the Doctor may fuppose for the former, I cannot conceive what he has to do with the latter. One would not think, that the mere intimation of a sentence required much power. But here we have a parcel of great fwelling words heaped together, to hide the mere nothing that is left in point of fact; like the many pompous titles of a prince without power, and without dominions.

The Doctor's magic lanthorn, entirely different in its conftruction from thofe generally used, having the power of reducing its object almost to nothing; he gives a very neceffary caution to the wondering spectators. "We ought not "to be furprised," he fays, "at fuch expreffions as this,

"Thy fins be forgiven thee." He has certainly fomething in view that may remove our aftonishment. Here it is. "The multitude who faw Chrift exerting a miraculous

power upon this occafion, and heard him exprefs himself in "this manner, had no idea of his claiming any extraordinary "power, as naturally inherent in himself; for it is faid, ver. 8. "that when the multitude faw it, they marvelled and glorified "God, who had given fuch power unto men." The whole force of our author's argument is; "Good Chriftian people, "there is not the leaft reason for your wondering that Jefus,

66

a mere man, God's fervant, fulfilling that obedience necef"fary for his own falvation, should not only know the

thoughts of men, but declare that he had power to forgive fins;-as the unbelieving Jews themselves did not thence "conclude that he was a divine Perfon." But the very Jews were furprised. They marvelled. Yes; "but they

66

had no idea of his claiming any extraordinary power as "inherent in himself." If our author has compared this account with that given by the other Evangelifts, which is not quite improbable, he must know that the multitude had no proper ground for entertaining fuch an idea. For it does not appear, that they heard our Lord's difcourfe. Very few, indeed, could hear it. For at this time he was in a house, and the croud was fo great that those who brought the paralytic man had to uncover the roof and let him down from it, Mark ii. 1.-4. But it would have injured the Doctor's argument, to have referred to this circumftance. At what, then, did the multitude marvel? Certainly, at what they faw. This is the very language of that Gospel quoted by our author. They faw a man carried in on a bed, himself walk out, carrying his bed and when they faw, they marvelled, and glorified God, who had given fuch power unto men. The miracle, of itself, proved nothing more than a communication of divine power. They 24

were

were not acquainted with the ground on which our Lord declared it to be wrought.

But although the multitude" had no idea of his claiming

any extraordinary power, as inherent in himself," because they had not an opportunity of hearing the claim; it is evident that thofe had who did hear it. The Doctor himfelf fays; "The Scribes and Pharifees, indeed, said within "themselves, This man blafphemeth, ver. 3." Now, it is probable, that they were almost the only perfons who had an opportunity of making this reflection. As they always loved the chief feats, we cannot suppose that they would be ftanding without, while the vulgar were feated within. Accordingly, we learn that while there was not room for the multitude, "not fo much as about the door, certain of "the Scribes were fitting there," that is, in the house, Mark ii. 2. 6. Nay, there were Pharifees and doctors of the law fitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judea and Jerufalem, Luke v. 17. Such a band most probably filled the house. Thus, it would appear that the idea was entertained by all who had an opportunity of hearing our Lord's difcourfe. They faid, This man blafphemeth. And had fome modern Doctors been fitting with them, they muft, according to their principles, have joined in the charge.

But we are told, that "the Jews called it blafphemy, to pretend to be the Chrift." The proof brought to fupport this affertion, we may confider afterwards. But can Dr P. really believe, that these Scribes, Pharifees, and Doctors of the law, charged our Lord with blafphemy, on this occafion, because he feemed to claim the character of Meffiah? For the honour of his reafon, whatever elle should fuffer in the cause, we muft fcorn the idea. Could the carnal Jews apprehend, that Jefus pretended to be the Chrift, by

Ibid.

by" declaring the forgiveness of fin?" Did" this high of"fice" correfpond with their notions of the Meffiah? Did they not expect one, whose work had no respect whatsoever to fin, a temporal prince to fubdue their outward enemies? Or, will our author avail himself of his doctrine as to "regal authority?" Will he choose to say, that they charged him with blasphemy, because he claimed that declaratory power, "which always accompanies" it? But did not Dr P. know, when writing this, that two other Evangelifts exprefsly give, as the reafon of this accufation, that Jefus claimed what was ftill acknowledged by Jews as the peculiar prerogative of Deity, the power of forgiving fins? Why doth this man thus speak blafphemies? Who can forgive fins but God only? Mark ii. 7. Who is this that Speakath blafphemies? Who can forgive fins but God alone? Luke v. 21. Is there one word concerning Chrift or Meffiah here? while, according to the Doctor's ftrange affertion, their queftion ought to have been, "Who can forgive fins "but the Meffiab only?" Is there any unprejudiced man, who can doubt that the laft words of thefe cavillers contain the reason of the preceding accufation? or, that it was recorded by the Evangelifts with this view? Thefe very Pharifees and Doctors would have blushed at fuch difingenuity. Is this the man who is confident that he is a guide of the blind, a light of them who are in darkness, an inftructer of the foolish, a teacher of babes? For all the noife made by Socinians about reafon, one would think that they confidered it as appropriated to a particular herefiarch; and that the only reafon, required of his difciples, were implicitly to receive his teftimony, even when, as in this inftance, directly contrary to that of the Spirit of inspiration. This is the reafon of an Unitarian, to believe that when the Jews exprefsly charge our Saviour with blafphemy, for claiming what themselves fay, belongs to God alone, they only mean

to

to accufe him of pretending to be a mere man: as this, we are told, is the highest notion they entertained of the promifed Meffiah.

CHA P. VIII.

That Jefus declared his Deity by calling himself the 1 AM.

HAT God revealed himself by this name to his an

THAT

cient people, our opponents cannot deny. When he appeared to Mofes in the bufh, and gave him a commiffion to the Ifraelites, Mofes inquired how he fhould answer that question, which they would naturally propofe, What is bis Name? And God faid unto Mofes, I AM THAT I AM: and thus fhalt thou fay unto the children of Ifrael, I AM bath fent me unto you, Ex. iii. 14. In his fubfequent revelations, especially in these by the prophet Isaiah, he often used this name, by which he had so early made himself known. It certainly denotes the eternal, neceffary, immutable and incomprehenfible existence of God. If it appear, that Jefus revealed himself under this defignation, in its proper meaning, as applied to God in the Old Teftament, and that the faith of his difciples terminated on him in this refpect; no reafonable doubt can remain, that he is God over all, and that he was acknowledged as fuch by those whom he employed to publifh his doctrine to others.

We learn from one of "the three firft Gospels," that he promifed his prefence to his difciples, by appropriating to himself this divine title: Where two or three are gathered together in my Name, there AM I in the midft of them, Matt. xviii. 20. It is acknowledged by Dr. P. that this is a “paf"fage which feems to fuppofe the omniprefence of Christ *."

*Famil. Illuftr. p. 26.