/^
3f
o^ ot o^ G^ .^^ i:a. ^^:2r
i)Y Tin:
pkinceto:n, n. j.
samuel agne\v,
OK P H I I. A HE I.PH I A , PA.
04^0.
//2^^<^ :Sctr/C, /dP^'^
Shelf,
Book,
Division
Sec
No
'-y-r-^-
; £^^^^.\.^^« ^ V
V
. I
.*J?f...i».-jSjfei4JL^'^.^. il/- /-
A
•VINDICATION
OF THE
DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE,
AND OF
THE PRIMITIVE FAITH ;
CONCERNING
THE DEITY OF CHRIST:
IN REPLY TO DR PRIESTLEY'S HISTORY
OF EARLY OPINIONS, t:c.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
^A^
BY JOHN J AMIESON, D. D. F. A. S. S
MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL, FORFAR.
VOL. L
Behold, this Cl>i!d is fet for the fall and i ifing again of many in Ifrael ;
and for a fign which fliall be fpoken againfl:: — that the thoughts of ma-
ny hearts may be revealed. LUKE.
Omnes haeretici perverfa credentes, panem de coelo defcendentem co-
medere non poffunt : fed obftupefcunt dentes eorum, non ciborum aulle-
ritate, fed vitio dentium. HILRONl M.
EDINBURGH:
PRINTED BY NfJILL AND COMPANY, FOR C. DILLY,
POULTRY, LONDON j ANI* SOLD BY J. OGLE,
PARLIAMENT SQUARE EDINBURGH.
M.DCC.XCIV.
Cmertl in ^taticiicr;^ li^^all
THE
P R E F A C E,
J IIE idea of this work was firll fuggefted by a letter which
appeared, under Dr Prleflley's fignature, in one of tfic
London prints, about four years ago. The defign of t]}i:5
letter was to (late that, altliOugh feme years had elapfed
fmce the publication of his Hip.jry of Early Opinions can-
cer ?ilng 'J^fu'i Chrift^ no anfvver had been given to it ; and
that, if the faine filcnce fiiould be obferved durinp" a cer-
tain time wiiich he is plcafed to lirait, he would coniider
it as an acknowledgment, on the part of the whole Chri-
liian world, tliat it was unanfwerable.
For a confidcrable time, I hefitated, expe£tingthat fome
more able combatant would enter the li(ls againft this literary
giant, who has defied the armies cf the living God. But a full
convlclion that I have trutli on my iide, emboldened me to
engage in this work -, and, notwithfLanding various difccu-
ragements, to proceed I)i it. The fatal influence of the So-
cinian fchcme, in tiirowing open the flnices to Infidelity,
and in hurrying forward thofe whom this torrent has al-
ready fwept awa\ j the fafclnating power which it inva-
a 2 riablv
iv PREFACE.
riaMy difcovers, in bereaving its votaries of all tiiat diflin-
guiuies Clirift-anity but the name ; their ui wearied affi-
duitj ill extending the delufion -, with its rapid progrels
in this ar^e •, undoubtedly lay the ftrongeft obligations on
every one who reuliy believes the gofpel, to exert him-
felf to the utmod, according to his place or ability, for the
prelervation and defence of the truth as it is in 'Jejus.
It feems to be the plan of modern Socinians, to carry the
controvcrfy as mucii as po:Iible out of uhe boundaries of Re-
velation. The voluminous and in'accurate works of the
Fathers afford them a more ample field for mifreprefenta-
tion, for cavilling, or at leal! for conjedure Therefore, as
far as the nature of the work would admit, I have e.idea-
voured to rellore the controverfy to its proper limits. V/ith
this view, I have not only conlidcred the prmcipal argu-
ments from fcripture contained in the Hiftory, but occa-
fionally ini:roduced others which Dr P. has publiilied di-
ftlndly; efpecially as he refers to thefe for further i!lu-
itration.
Confidering the many able replies that have been for-
merly made to writers of the fame clafs, to fome this work
may appear fuperfluous. But error, although iLill fubltan-
tiall)' the fame, alTumes a diveriaty of foim.s in dilferent pe-
riods. 1 his has been remarkably the caie with refpecl: to
the Socinian herefy Thofe who now appear as its friends
deny the force of the reafoning of many former writers, be-
caufe they have renounced the grounds on which that rea-
foning proceeded. In the laft century, they acknowledged
that the Logos was a perfon, and afiirmed that this perfon
was tlie mere man Jefus Chriit. They nov/ maintain that
the lame Logos is merely an attribute of God. Then they
worlliippcd the Son. Now they refufe that he is entitled
to
PREFACE. V
to religious v/orfhip of any kind. In lieu of their former
interpretations of fcripture, they have devifed a great ma-
ny new ones ; which, although equally weak, and in ma-
ny inflances more ridiculous, are ftill calculated to enfnare
the ignorant, and the unwary.
Some may imagine that it was quite unnecefTary to en-
ter into the cont^overfy, as far as it refpccls the Fathers ;
becaufe the decifion of the general queilion cannot depend
upon their do6hine. I am as fully fatisfied as they can be,
that the word of God is the only teft of divine truth, and
that any human authority, as far as it oppofes this, is of
no weight. Alihcugh the majority of Chiiiilan writers,
in the age immediately fuccecding that of the Apoftles,
had held a doctrine direftly coiitr.iry to the ob v ious mean-
ing of fcripture, they would noi have merited our regard.
For if the fcriptures were written for the ufe of luankind in
all ages, and w^ere therefore to be interpreted according to
the plain fenfe of language ; we, humanly fpeaking, mufl
be as capable of undcrllandiag them in all things neceifarily
connedled with falvation, as thofe who lived in that early
age, or even as thofe lo whom they were immediately di-
rected.
However, when our opponents appeal to the Fathers, it
is of importance to iliew that they appeal in vain. I or it
cannot be denied that, did the current of antiquity in this
reipect feem to oppoie the Trinicarian do6trine, with niiiny
it would be a powerful argument agamit it. Btit it being
once eitabliihed chat this is the doctrine of fcripture, accord-
ing to its obvious meaning ; when it is alio proved that the'
church from the beginning has adhered to it, altiiough this
circiiUiLance can add nothing t^ the authority of tlie doc-
trine idelf, it is very conlirming to the mind in a fuboidi-
a 3 nate
xrl PREFACE.
natc refpecl: ; flicws that the caufe of our opponents is indc-
fo^fiblc on every quarter ; tends to filence theu' vain boaft-
iilf^s ; may liave weight with thofe who will not attend to
anv other kind of argument ; and illudrates the unity of the
church, in her fuccelTive generations, with refpedl: to a doc-
trine wliich conRitutes the very bafis of revelation, deeply
a(fefhs rihnoil every article of her faith, and immediately
characterizes the whole of her worlhip.
But in the i:?refent indance, the Fathers have been ap-
pealed to, not properly with refped to opinions, but with
refpedl to fafls •, not as themfelves interpreting the fenfe of
fcripturc, but as declaring the fenfe in which it was inter-
preted by others. From their teliimony Dr Priellley has
attempted to prove that all the Hebrew Chriilirtns were E-
bionltes, or what he calls Unitarians, ?nd that the majority
even of Gentile Ghriflians, in the firft ages, were of the
fame opinion. Were it polfible to prove only the iirfl; of
thefe politions, I do not fay that we ought to renounce the
doftrine of the Trinity, but that we ought to renounce Chri-
flianity entirely. For it Vv^ould follow that, in the New
Teltament, the faith and praclice of the primitive church
are cxliibitcd as directly the reverfe of what they really
were. But a proof of tills kind is in fa<5t impoffible. For
did the Fathers aflert fuch things, there would be an evi-
dent nccefllty for rejeiling their tclHmony as falfe or adul-
terated. For tliey fubje<5t it to the autliority of fcripture :
and tlic fcriptural narrative of fa(f[s, as far as it extends, is
fully as intelligible as theirs. But although their teftimony
could not invalidate that of revelation, they may be fu-
ftained as competent witneffes of the ftate of fa 61s in their
own times ; when there is no certain evidence that thej'^
were lliemfelves miflcd, or that they were difpofed tQ
Tiiiilcad others.
It
PREFACE. vii
It has been my wifti, as far as pofTible, to avoid going
over the fame ground with thofe learned gentlemen who
have animadverted on the Hijlory of the Corrupt iorn: of
Chriflianity. But this could not be entirely avoided, with-
out an abfolute difregard to connexion. Tlie fub fiance of
the arguments contained in that work, is republifhed in tlie
Hlflory of Early Opinions. But it is fo interfperfed with
a variety of new evidence, that the one could not well be
feparated from the other. Befides, as the Hijlory of Opi'
nions did not; make its appearance till the controverfy with
refpecl to the former work was terminated, or nearly fo,
Dr P. has exhibited many of his old arguments in a new
form ; meaning, doubtlefs, that this laft flatement lliould be
confidered as the refult of all the invefligation on both fides
of the queltion. I am far from flattering myfelf, that any
thing I can fay will have more weight with Jmn, than what
has been advanced by preceding writers. But perhaps, it
may appear to others, that fome additional light has been
thrown even on thoTe points which have been already de-
bated. As no reply has profefledly been made to what the
Doftor calls his large work, an ample field lias hitherto re-
mained unoccupied.
That able and elegant writer Mr Whitaker, in his Origin
of Aria?iifm difciofcd, has chiefly direded his attention to
the faith of the ancient Jews. This work was tranfcribed
for the prels, before I knew that he had wrote on the fub-
jed. I was apprehenfive that v.'hat he had publiftied might
have fuperfeded the necelTity of any thing further with re-
fpe£l to the Jewifli creed. But he has taken a general view
of the fubjecl ; whereas I have confidered it particularly,
in relation to the objeftions made by Dr P. Thus, even
where there is fome coincidence in the ' reafoning, it alfumes
a 4 a
vili PREFACE.
a very dlfF'-Tent form. There are alfo feveral points in
"vvhich we materially ditTer.
This work has fwelled fo much beyond what was origi-
nally defi;ined, t!rat it has been necelTary to overlook va-
riciH rticles of importance which liave received a place in /
the Il-fiory nf Early Opinions. I particularly regret that
I could not enter on the confideration of what is advanced
on the doOrine of the Miraculous Cojicrption. But if this
attempt meet v/iih a favourable reception frohi the public,
that may be the fubject of a future difcufTion.
It would be prefampticn to imagine, that there are no
miiiakes in a work of fuch extent and variety. But I am
conicious that I have in no inftance wilfully mlfreprefented
the meaning of our m.cdern hillorian, or mifinterpreted the
language of any ancient writer quoted on the fubjecl. Nor
have I followed the crdinary plan of Socinians, in difre-
garding what may be reckoned the llrongcfl: arguments on
the oppollte fide ; but ]>ave endeavoured, on the contrary,
to give every one its full force.
Li the courfe of this w^ork, thofe whom our author ac-
knowledges as brethren are often defigned by that name
wb.ich they have aflnmcd. The3% indeed, c-'Il tliemfelvei?
U.iitaricins, rs pretending that they alone hold the divine
vnty. I need net fay tliat, in tliis fenfe, every Trinitarian
murt deny iheir title to the name ; as being fully convin-
ced th: t thofe only who believe in three Perfons liold the
fcnptural do6lri'^e of ov.c God. But as this work contains
fo many quotations, in which the name occurs in the fenfe
impofed by Sccinians ; I could not, witliout confuficn or
frrquent ftircumlocution, avoid the ufe of it in this fenfe.
Thcref
lation
PREFACE. ix
lation claimed by the party, without the mofl diftant idea
of acknowledging the juftnefs of the claim.
Always, when it has been attainable, I have confuUed the
oriq;inal writers referred to, unwilling to take tlie quo-
tations of others upon truft.
It is not one of the leaft difadvantages to which this work
is fubjecled, that it makes its appearance at a time when
the fublic attention fee^is to be corifincd to the ma-
nagement of the kingdoms of this world. But there are
flill many, it is to be hoped, who have their eye principally
directed to that kingdom which cannot he moved. Others
may look on, as nowife interefted in the ilTue of this con-
troverfy •, or may crnlider it as of no moment, compared
with that which engrolles their attention. But they will
contemplate all xhzfiakhigs of nations, in their certain fub-
ferviency to the more eminent coming of the Dcjire of all
nations. As the defence of his eflentlal rights has been my
great delign in this work, I am not alKam.ed to avow that I
I'.umbly commend it to his ail-powerful proteclion.
C ON-
ERRATA, VOL. I.
JSf. B. h ^igm^QS from the hottom of the page*
Page 23, line 15, for not out, read formed out
^G, line i, for in, read it
105, line 2, (<^) for Now read How
â– . . 139, line 7, rc-a^i natural
149, line 4, {b^ r^m/ communicative
.. 176, line 8, for formerly, r. which will be afterwatds explair>ed
— — aop, noXt, for 1S5 read 199, 2O0
• 215, note, _,f5r Uporv-Dtiu read Upert-wim
230, line 3, (b) for At read As
" 235, line I, for as fuch rend as able to
. 25 T, line 9, for out read our
. 278, line 10, for J^^^p} ''^"'^^ J<*in
- 28S, line 2, /
â– â– 360, line 22, ivhere the letters are dropt out, real evidence
— — 532, line 10, for mention read n^eutioaetl
CONTENTS
OF THE
FIRST VOLUME.
BOOK I.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ANCIENT JEWS CONCERNING THE
MESSIAH.
PAG.
Chap. I. Of Br P.'s Hypothe/s on this fubjeBy
a?id of Philos BoBrine conceriihig the
LogOSf - - - - - I
Chap. IL That Philo did not borrow from Plato, in
perfonifying the Logos : and that Pla-
to was not the Inventor of this BoBrine, i8
Chap. III. Of the Perfo?iality afcrihed to the Logos
hy Philo i and of the, Ufiitarian Boc-
trijie of occafonal Perfonality, - 28
Chap. IV. Of Philo' s BoBrine concerning Angels.' -
Whether he co?i/idered the Logos as the
future Mejjiahy - - - 41
Chaf.
Xll CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
PAG.
Chap. V. Of the fenfe in which the Chaldee Para-
p- rafls ufed the termMEUViA, - 48
Chap. VI. The Do&rine of the yews concernuig the
Name Jehovah, the Angel Mkta-
TRON, and the Trinity, - 61
Chap. VII. Of the Doftrine of the fews, in exp^efs
reference to the Messiah, both cit the
time of our Saviour's appearance, and
in Jucceeding ages, - . - 78
Chap. VIII. The faith of the ancient Hebrews con-
cerning that P erf on who is called THE
ANGEL OF THE LOKD, - 99
Chap. IX. Of the Son being revealed, in the Old
Tcfiament, as the WORD and WISDOM
of God, 117
BOOK II.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CONCERNING
JtSUS CHRIST.
Chap. I. The Logos proved to be a P erf on, from
the IntroduBion to the Gojpeloffohn, 129
Chap. II. Of the Defgn of the Firf Epijile of John, 163
Chap. ill. Ad.Uti'nal Evidence, from the Neiv Tefta-
meut, oj Uhrifi being the Logos, - 195
3 Chap.
CONTENTS OF VOL. I. Xlll
PAG,
Chap. IV. The D^'vinity of Chrijl proi)ed fro?n the
Three Firjl Gofpels^ - - - 201
Chap. V. Of our Saviour's DoBrine and ConduB with
refpeB to his Brdjiiiy^ - - 218
Chap. VI. T/3f Miracles of Jfus a Proof of bis Di-
vini/jy -. - 224
Chap. VII. Of the Proof of our Saviour s Divimtjfrom
his forgiving Sin, - - - 244
Chap. VIII. That Jefus declared his Divinity, by calU
ing hiijflf the lAM, - - 250
Chap. IX, Dr P's. Ohfeciion to the Argument from
tie uje of the title^ I AM, conjidered, 266
Chap. X. Of the Caution which fame Fathers are
fuid to afcrihe to the Apofles, in de-
vulging the DoClrine of the Divinity of
Cihriji ; and of the ahfolute Silence af-
crihed to them, on this fuhjeSi, hy Dr /*., 284
Chap. XI. Proof , from the Book of Acts, that the A-
pojlles taught the DoBrine of the Divi-
nity of Chrifl, - - - 313
BOOK III.
OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE DEITY OF CHRIST FROM THE
USE OF THAT ExPS.L:SS10N, THE SON OF GOD.
Chap. I. OJ the Faith of Saints under the Old Tefla-
mcnt ; and of the Tejlinioriy of the Fa-
ther, concerning Cnrifl as the Son of
God. ~ Of the Tejiituony of Angels, 348
Chap.
XIV CONTENTS Of VOL. I. ]
\
TAG. !
Chap. II. 0/ the Tejlimony of Devils, and of the E- \
nemies of Chrijif - - 3^5 i
1
Chap. III. Of the TefimoTiy ofjefus himfcf, concern- j
ing his Sonf?ip, - - 399 '
CllAP. IV. Of the Faith of the Difciples^ as to this '
Point, during our Saviour s Abode on \
Earthy - - - - - 433 ,
Chap. V. Of the Uf of this Exp^-efion hy the Apo-
flles, and others^ cfter his /ifceryio?iy 448
BOOK IV.
OF DR FRIESTLFA'"s ARGUMF.NTS AGAINST THE DEITY OF
CHRIST.
Chap. I. Of the Firf Argumevt, from what is fup-
pcfcd to he the general te;ior of Scrip-
ture, - - - 4r)3
Chap. II. Of the Arguvient ogaivf this Doclrine,
from the pretended Difficulty cf tracing
the ^irne whe?i it zvasftjl divulged^ 512
Chap. III. Of the Argmnent from Chrif not Icing the
Ohjccl cf Prayer, - - 527
Chap. ,
i
CONTENTS OF VOL. I. XV
PAG.
Chap. IV. Of the OhjeBion to this DoBrlne^ as imply-
ing a Co?ityadi&iony - - 534
Chap. V. Of the OhjeEllonfrom the Doctrine of Ma-
teria rity, - - - - - 547
Chap. VI. Of the OhjeBlon to the Docirinc of the
Trinity^ that it 'ivould he of no Ufe,
although it were true^ - - jji
VINDICATION
OF T H E
DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE, £if6,
BOOK L
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ANCIENT JEWS CONCERNING
THE MESSIAH.
C H A P. I.
Of Lr Priefilefs Eypothefis on this SuhjeB \ and ofFhild's
HoBrine concerning the Logos.
IT is of confiderable importance, with refpedl to the de-
ciiion of this controverfj, to know what was the faith
of the Church before the coming of the Saviour. Dr Prieft-
ley, in the firft form which he gave his work, introduced
the prophets as his witnelTes. " The Jews," he fays, " were
*' taught by their prophets to expert a Mefliah, who was to
*' be defcended from the tribe of Judah ;— but none of their
'* prophets gave them an idea of any other than a man like
" themfelves, in that iiluftrious chara6ler, and no other
•* did they ever expert, or do they expedt to this day *."
Vol. I. A The
* Hift. of Corruptions, vol. i. p. l.
2 Of Br Priejlley's Hypothefis concerning Book L
The learned Gentleman was himfelf fo fully fatisficd of
the truth of tliefe aflertions, that, important as they are
in their connexion, he does not feem to have thought it
neceflary to add a fhadow of proof. He makes bare afler-
tion the very bafis of his fabric, as if he meant fairly to-
fhew the world what they were to expedl from the whole.
However, in the enlarged form in which the fame work
makes its fecond appearance, the author defcends a little
from this dogmatical elevation, and deigns to favour the
reader with fome kind of evidence. But it is partial and
inconclulive. He endeavours to prove that the Jews, with-
out exception, at the time of our Saviour's appearance, ex-
pe6led no other than a human Meffiah; and that they had
no higher expeftations in any fucceeding period. But he
offers -no proof of his alTertion with refpe6t to the dodrine
of the prophets. Indeed, if the determination of this dif-
pute were left to the prophets alone, and if their teftimonj
met with the fame juftice, in interpretation, that is ordina-
rily allowed to human writings, the difpute would foon be
at an end. It would appear, that, if there be any mean-
ing in language, if the prophetical writings were not de-
iigned as an impofition on the common fenfe of mankind,
all the prophets, who particularly wrote of the Meffiah,
give the mod diflin6l idea of a divine Perfon. But as Dr
p. leaves his afTertion with refpeft to them without fup-
port, it is unnecclTary to confider it particularly. He
wiflies to take a lefs tedious and difficult plan, than that of
exploring the depths of prophecy. If he can firft eftablifli
it as fa6l, that the Jews expefted merely a human Meffiah,
it will, in his account, be a fufficient prefumption with re-
fpe£t to the truth delivered to them in Scripture.
That the generality of the Jews, at the time of our
Saviour's appearance, had very confufed ideas of the
charafter of Meffiah, few, perhaps, will be difpofed to
doubt. But it may afterwards appear that they entertain-
ed
Chap. T. the Jewijh BoBr'me, l^c. 3
ed apprehenfions of his chara6ler, not eafil^^ reconcileable
with the idea of his being a mere man.
According to Dr P., " Our Saviour could not poiTibly
** have puzzled the Jewifli Doctors as he did, by alking
** them how David could call the Mefliah his Lord, when
** he w^as his Son, or defcendant, on any other principle.
" For if they had themfelves been fully perfuaded that
" the Mefliah, though defcendtd from David, was the Ma-
" ker and God of David, a fatisfaftory anfwer to his que-
** ftion was very obvious." But how could that be '^Jaiif-
faBory anfwer in the mouth of a Jew, which is foolilhnefs
when uttered by a Chriftian ? For once, it would feem, the
diftinftion of natures in the perfon of the Mefliah may be
admitted, as a fatisfadory folution of the difficulty ariling
from the apparent oppofition of the characters afcribed to
him. But, kind reader, you muft not prefume to plead this
as a precedent. It is only meant to ferve a prefent purpofe.
However, as'the Jewiih Doctors did not give this/atis/aC'
tory anfwer, it is fair to conclude that they were greatly
at a lofs for one that was fo. But they could not pojfihly
have been pu^z%ied, had they not been confcious that the
words of David implied an acknowledgment of dignity,
and therefore of defcent, more than human. Or, fhall \\q
rather fuppofe that thefe Jewifli Dodlors were not fo well
acquainted wiih Hebrew idioms and ideas as thofe of our
time ? A fatisfadory a?ifui-er would have been very obvious
to the mereft novice in Socinianilm. Without any heflta-
tion he would have told Jefus, that it was no wife repug-
nant to their traditionary and t-ftabiiflied, nay, to their
fcriptural ideas of Jehovah, to believe that a mere man
fliould flt on his right hand, as fliarmg in his power and
glory. But, furely, a good caufe never had more wretch-
ed advocates. For no 7/ian was able to anfwer him a word.
Mere daflards mull they all have been. For neUher durjl
A % any
4 Of Dr Prieft ley's Hjipothejis concerning Book L-
any 7nan from that day forth ajk him any more qucflions^
Matth.xxii. 46.
But if Jefus had no fonfliip fuperior to that by his defcent
from David, it will be difficult to vindicate his conduct on
this occafion. For if Chrirt was only to be the fon A Divid,
the" Pharifees declared the whole truth in anfwer to our
Saviour's queflion, What think ye of Chriji, whofe fon is
he ? The queftion was reftrifted to his Sonflnp. They
could not, with propriety, take greater latitude in their
anfwer. 'Tlfey fay unto him^ The Son of Damd. It is al-
lowed that this to a Jew, was a charafter of the fame
meaning with that of Mefliah. Now, as theyanfsered
difcreetly, if they told the whole truth concerning the
Sonihip, what good end could it ferve for our Saviour to
pu%^le them ? Did it become the great Prophet, when
men had juft and dlftind ideas of truth, to excite doubts
in their minds, and to expofe them to the danger of Scep-
ticifm ? Undoubtedly, if there was any propriety in the
objection made by Jefus, he wiflied them to believe, that
the charafler given him by the fpirit of prophecy neceflari-
ly implied a fuperior filiation. He might juftly leave them
in their perplexity, becaufe they ought to have known his
character from their own fcriptures ; and becaufe he knew
that they wilfully and obftinately refifted the light which
thefe afforded.
According to our author, " Facundus very properly
** fays, that Martha and Mary would never have faid to
" Chriff, // thou hadji been here, had they thought him
" to be God omniprefent *." But if Jefus be not God
omniprefent, he could never hTiwQ properly faid to Martha,
/ ai7i the refurreBion, and the life, John xi. 21. 25. It
feems abundantly evident, that even the difciples had very
confufeii
I
* Ibid. p. 35.
"Chap. I. the yewi/h Do&rinc, 'iSc. 5
confufed notions with refpe6t to the chara61:er of Jefus, be-
fore the efFufion of the Hoiy Ghoft, who was to teach them
all things. But it is unfair to judge of the fixed principles
of the difciples, from the occalional workings of unbelief;
efpecially when their minds were in great perturoadon, or
under peculiar temptation. It is clear, that our Lord had
reproved Martha as indulging this fin \ '* Said I not unto
" thee that if thou wouldejl believe f'* is'c. ver. 4c. Whence