writes on the same subject, he replies with the soundest wisdom and discretion, and declares it to be in real truth, and in the nature of things, quite a matter of indifference whether what they ate had been so used or not, so long as they did not designedly promote any participation in the superstitous rites of the heathens; the flesh of the victims (which was publicly sold in the shambles) might be eaten with a safe conscience, and with thankfulness to the true God, from whose bounty they received their food; but if any weak Christian, not properly understanding his liberty in this respect, should think otherwise, and be scandalized at the practice, as if it gave countenance to idolatry, he directs them to abstain rather than wound the conscience of a brother,

"for whom Christ died: a very important and judicious rule for the observance of all Christians in their conduct with regard to those things, which are in themselves indifferent, but which sometimes become of great consequence, from the light in which they are viewed by others. Although you are persuaded that you may lawfully, and can without any detriment to yourselves, engage in certain practices, yet, if your conduct therein shall be misunderstood and misinterpreted by others, so as to do any injury to the cause of religion, you are bound to accom

modate yourselves to their ignorance and prejudices, and to deny yourselves even in that which you know and feel to be really innocent, rather than cause a more infirm believer to stumble; for a thing in its own nature indifferent, becomes sinful, if it operates, even in an indirect way, to the prejudice of the Gospel. Now St. Paul thought this a matter so worthy of attention, that, concerning the particular subject on which he was writing, he declares emphatically, "Therefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

This is not, however, the subject that I have in view in my present discourse; but I have thought it right to explain it thus far, by way of introduction to the words of the text, and that you may see how they are connected with what precedes and what follows them. The apostle had declared in the verse immediately before the text, that "an idol is nothing in the world; " no real Deity; "and that there is none other God but one; for though (he continues) there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be Gods many, and Lords many) but (or, yet) to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and

F

we by him." Some have made a difficulty about this passage, doubting whether St. Paul meant to express any distinction in nature, essence, and power between the Father and the Son, whether he meant to imply a superiority in the one, and an inferiority in the other, of these two persons of the holy and mysterious Trinity; but it seems evident, both from the argument in general, and from the particular expressions here employed, that no such thing is intended. He is simply stating the christian's creed in regard to the Unity of God, as opposed to the polytheism, the belief in many Gods, of the heathens. They worshipped a vast variety of imaginary deities, whom they called "Gods and Lords," we have (says he) but one God, one Lord. He does not mean to say, they have many Gods; we have but two, or we have One Supreme God, and one inferior object of worship, whom we call, by way of distinction "Lord;" for Christians had then, and have now, but one God; nor did they ever, nor do they now, in the true church, bestow their adoration on any other, since it is written, "thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve;" and the words "God" and "Lord" are used indiscriminately in the Scriptures, to signify this Supreme Being, as you may remark in the passage I have just quoted, "thou shalt worship the Lord thy God," nor could he

possibly have intended, in saying, "we have one Lord," to exclude the Father, as a separate person of the Godhead, since that title, and all that it implies, surely belongs to Him, and it would not be correct to say that He is not our Lord, or that He is not as truly our Lord, as either of the other persons of the sacred Trinity, separately considered; since all are "co-equal together," and the holy Scriptures bestow the appellation indifferently upon all, whether regarded as united in One God, or according to their distinct and peculiar offices. Moreover, it is evident from the other expressions of the passage before us, that when he speaks of "one God, the Father," and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," he does not mean God and a human being, or any creature, since it is nearly the same thing that he says of both, "God the Father, of whom (as the first cause) are all things, and we in him," or rather for him, "as it is in the margin of our Bibles, and as the original certainly signifies, i. e. devoted to him, designed for his service, "and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom (as the immediate agent) are all things, and we by him," i. e. probably, accepted through him; so that the whole passage seems to signify that, in opposition to the heathens, who bestow divine honours on a multitude of imaginary Gods and Lords, we worship

but one, the true God and Father of us all, (without reference now to the distinction of persons) and that one more especially as made manifest to us in his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is (as the same apostle elsewhere asserts in plain terms) "over all, God blessed for evermore."

My object then, at present, is first to state, and then to prove to you from the Scriptures, the truth of the doctrine, which is intimated in the words of my text, viz. that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, "in whom also we have redemption through faith in his blood," is co-equal with the Father, very and eternal God;" and may God give us a sound faith, and a right understanding in all things!

66

I think it impossible for a person, of a sincere and unprejudiced mind, to study the Scriptures with attention, and still to doubt that they teach the doctrine which I have just stated; for if human language can be express, and positive, and clear upon any subject, the Scriptures are so on this; and I must remark in the commencement, that never had men a more difficult task in the way of interpretation, than they, who, accepting the Gospel, yet denying the proper divinity of Christ, are under the necessity of justifying their creed by disputing the sense of these passages,