4^f- DUKli UNIVERSITY LIBRARY DURHAM, N. C. Rcc'd. l^^| jQ^tt^"^^^^ \ Form 1)34— 20M— 7-3.^ 4 I % i vl 4 Mi' I rH£ DEirr of jEsmfT^ CHRISTIAN RELIGION. TREATISE ON THS DIV I N I TT OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST; Written originally in French, BY JA.MES ABBADIE, d. d. and Dean of Killa/cc, in Ireland, A NEW EDITION of the ENGLISH TRANSLATION, Revifcdt Cerre^cd, andy in a fc~v places, AbriagiJ, BT ABRAHAM B)OrH, A. M. Paftor of the Baptift Church, Goodman's Fields, Loncîon. Great is the myftcry of Godlinefs, Gox> was nianiiefl in the flefh. 1 Timothy iii. 16. We arc in Hini that is true, even in his Son Jefus Chrifl. This is the true God and Eternal Life. 1 John v. 20. tynKsr^sasamy^sxtœtsaamsTn BURLINGTON. N.J. Printed by S C USTICFC for THOMAS USTICK, No. 79, North Third Street, Philadelphia, March, 1802. Sch. R. Preface by the Editor. i HE doctrine of our Lord's Eternal Divinity- having been, on different grounds, tlie object of long ai d violent oppofition ; many learned, ingenious, and able pens have been engaged in defence of that capital truih. Few, however, have repelled the adverfary with thcfe powers of genius, and that force of atgunient, whi^^h vere employed by Dr. Abbadie in compofing t! is admirable Treatife. — Far from contenting himfcif Vsith dogmatical aflertions, and equally far from amufing his readers with curious mctaphyfical fpecu'ations, on the grand Subjed of his inquiries ; he has recourfe to the tcflimony of Gon — to that Revelation which Jkhovah îjjs made of himftlfin the Bible, and to ihofe dcdu^lions from it, which are natural, clear, and conclufive. Thus he proves that Chrill: is a Divine PhRsON, and equal with the Father; without pretending to know, or attempt- ing to inveftigate, the modus of his Divine Perfonalicy. In regard to the former, he lirmly believes that the Scripture is full, explicit, peremptory ; in reference to the latter, he confidersthefacred Canon as entirely filent : and, to difpute what Eternal Veracity afierts, bccaufe it is above the power of reafon to comprehend ; or to endeavour to difcover what God has not revealed of himfeif, he looks upon as irrational, prefumptaous, and highly criminal. The fentiments and views of our Author, in t! is refpedl, are well exprefied by another celebrated write-, who fays ; * I freely grant, that, had I confulted Wij * own reafon only, I could not have difcovered foma * myaeries of the gofpel. Neveithelefs, when 1 think * on the grandeur of God ; w h jn I call my eyes on dut A 2 275547 IV I'llLFACK. * vafl Ocean; when I confider tliat immenfeALL-, * nothing aftonifhes me, nothing (lumblcs me, nothing * Teems to me inadmifiîble, how incomprehenfible * foever it may be. WJien the fubjed is Divine, I * am ready to believe all, to admit all, to receive all;. * provided I be convinced that it is God his felf who * 'peaks to me, or any one on his part. After this I am * no more afionilhed that there are three dillind Perfons ' in one Divine efience ; one God, and )et a Father, a * Son, and a Holy Gholt. — Either religion mwft tell us ' nothing about God, or what it tells us rnuft be beyond ' our capacities ; and, in difcoveiing even the borders * of this immenfe Ocean, it muft needs exhibit a vail * extent in which our feeble eyes are loft. But what * farprizes me, what Humbles me, what frightens me, is ' to iee a diminutive creature, a contemptible man, a ' little ray of light glimmering through a few feeble * organs, controvert a point with the fupreme Being ; ' oppofe that Intelligence who fitteth at the helm of the * world ; queflion what he affirms, difpute what he * determines, appeal from his decifions, and, even after * God hath given evidence, reje<5l: all dodrines that are * beyond his capacity. Enter into thy nothingnefs, mortal * creature ! Vy hat madnefs animates thee ! How durd * thou pretend — thou who art but a point, thou whofe * efl'ence is but an atom — to meafure thyfelf with the ' Supreme Being ; with him who fills heaven and earth ; ' with Flim, whom heaverij the heaven of heavens cannot CQtUa'in! Canjl thou by fearch'mg fnd out God? Canji * ihoxi Jind out the Âhiùghty to ptrfcèl'ion? High as heaven, ' '•jjhat canjî thou do P deeper than hell y ivhut canjî thou ' hiozu*r The great principle which the Author aims to eftablifh in the following work, is ; That the Deity of Jefus Chrift is ejfenlial to the Chriftian Religion. In purfuance of this defign he fhews, if Jefus the Son of God be not of • M. Sauxun'j 5./7.Î. Yd I. p. 78, 79. Mr. F-oaiNsoN's Tranilation. the fame effence w'lch his Faiher, — That the Mahon^.etan rehgion is preferable to Chridianity, and Cliriil inlcvi(u- to Mahomet *-That the Sanhedrim did an ad of juftice, * It may be proper here to obferve, That fomf of the Socinians have not been afhamcd to avow a confiderable degree of regard lor the chara»aer and caufe of Mahomet. Witnefs their famoiH Addrcfs to Amktu Ben Ameth, ambaflador from the emperor of Fez and Morocco, to Charles the Second, King of Great •Britain. ' We, fay they to his Excellency, as your nearest * FELLOW-CHAMPION'S for thofe truths, — [/. e. truths in which * none but they agree with the Mahometans] We, who, with * our Unitarian brethren, were in all ages exercifcd to defend * with our pens the faith of one Supreme God, (without perfon- * alities, or pluralities) As He hjib ralfed your Mahom3Î to do ils *■ favic with the fwjrd, as a fcourge on thofe idolizing ChrijV.am ; * — We ào. fir ii'S li.idicafioi of your la-iu-mahr's gl'^ry, drive to * prove, that fuch faults and irregularities, [as are found in the ' Koran] not cohering with the fadiion of the red of the Alcoran « building, nor with the undoubted fayings of your prophet, nor * with the golpel of Chrift (whereof Mahomet would have ' himfelf to be but a preacher) — were foiftcd into the fcattercd ' papers found after Mahomet's death, of which in truth the ' Alcoran was made up : it being other wife impofiible t!iat a ' man of that judgment, that lath proved itflf in oth^r tli.igs fo •conspicuously, Ihould be guilty of fj many and frequent * repugnancies, as are to be feen in thofe writings and laws that ' are now-a-days given out under his name. We do, then, — * endeavour to clear by whom, and in what time, fuch alterations ■* were made in tlie firfl fetting out of the Alcoran.' See the whole Addrcfs in Leslie's Socinian Controvsrfy Dif, Pref. p. 3 — 13. Thus careful were thefe gentlemen to purge the Koran of every thing fuppofititious ; and thus tender of its Author's honour ! Another Socinian writer reprefents Mahomet, as having < no ' othur defign but to reflore the belief of the unity of God ; which, * fays he, at that time was extirpated among the eaRern Cariil- * ians, by the doilrines of the Trinity and Incarnation.' — And informs us, * That Mahomet meant not his religion fhould be '•cfteemed a nctv religion; but only the reftitution of the true * intent of the Chriftian religion — That the P.lahometan learned * men call themfelves. the true dfciples of the Mellias, or CJirifl ; * intimating thereby, that Chriftians are apoftates fiom the 'MOST ESSENTIAL PARTS of the doilrinc of the MeiTias '* That Mahometanirni has prevailed fo greatly, net by force a:id 9 7 H f; zS -7 VI F REFACE. in caufing Jefus to be put to death for blafphemy — That He and his apodles have led us into a complicated and })ernicious error — That there is no agreement between the Old and the New Tedament — And, that neither the ancient Jewifh, nor the Chriflian Religion, is attend- ed with fufficient criteria to diilinguifii it from impolbre. — In proving that thefe are the neceflaiy confequences of the Socinian and Arian fydems, and in anfwering the principal objections of his opponents ; he difcovers fuch fwrtility of invention, originality of thought, and flrength of reafoning powers, as comparatively few enjoy. The generality of writers on this very intesefting fubjed-, do little more than co!le<51: and retail the thoughts of others, which they exprefs in a diffcrciit flyle and m.ethod. Not fo Dr. Abb ABIE. For the reader of this maihrly performance, if not pofTeffed of uncom.mon penetration, is entertained with ideas entirely new, as well as with arguments irrefragably Ihong, in every Sedion, and in almoft every Chapter : fo that, if he love the adorable Jesus and " rejoice in his Highnefs," he finds himfelf inftruded, amazed, delighted. Though the bock be exceedingly fcarce, and, at tKis time, very little known in England ; the abilities of the Writer and the merit of the Treatife have received the mod: honourable tefllmonies from various pens. Abbé HouTEViLLE, for indancc, when fpeaking of our Author's work, on the truth of the Chr'ijlian Religion ; of which elaborate performance this is generally reckoned the third volume, fays ; * The mofl fliining of thofe ' treatifes in defence of the Chriflian Religion, which * were publifhed by the Proteflants, is that Vv'ritten by * Mr. Abbadie. The favourable reception it met with ; * the fword, — but by that one truth, in the Alcoran, the mùty * of God;' that is, as well in Per/on, as in EJfence. And then he reprefents the Tartars as ading more rationally, in embracing what he calls, ' the jmre plaufibU fcdt of Mahomet, than they * would have done, in receiving the Chriftian faith of the Trinity, * Iflcaniation; &c,' in Leslie, as above, p, 2§» PREFACE. VII * thè praifes it received, almod without example, immc- * diately afier its publication ; and the univerfal approba- * tion it (Ull meets with, vender it unneceiFary for me * to join my commendations, which would add fo Httle ' to the merit of fo great an author. In the firfl: part he * combats the Athei(h. the Deifts in the fécond, and thu * Socinians in the third *.' — Voltaire alfo, who cannot be fufpeded of a predile«5t:ion for Abbadie, on account of his writing in defence of revealed truth ; informs us, that ' he was celebrated for his Treatife on * the Chriflian Religion f .' — And the Rev. Mr. Venn thus recommends the work ; * It is a book in the highed * form for reputation, in all the Protedant countries * abroad ^ a book, in which the horrid abfurdities of all, * who, under pretence of being more rational in religion, * reject the counfel of God, are expofed in a moll ' mallerly manner :|:.' — Such is the character of the Author, among thole who know his abilities ; and fuch the elteem which this performance of liis has obtained. The Ifyle of the EngU;]i tranflation, which, on account of its many inaccuracies, reprefented the work to great difadvantage, the Editor has attempted to corred ; and, where it did not affevSl the argument, he has abridged the book, th:it the lize and price of it might be reduced. He has alfo taken the liberty, in fome places, of throwing in an additional thought ; with a view, either to elucidate the Auihor's meaning, or to enforce his argument. — How far his endeavours to render the book more generally known, and the tranflation of it more agreeable, may oi)tain the approbation of the religious public, he cannot pretend to fay. He is not, however, without a pleafing perfuafion, that many will read the work with delight and profit — that many, who " love our Lord * Article Abbadie, Nciu and Gen. Biograph . Dici. Note. t Age of Lewis XIV. Vol. II. p. 274. \ Exam, of Dr, Frhjîlefs Addrcfs on the LorSi Supper, p. IS, 23. Note. Vïll PREFACE-* ** Jesus Christ in fincerity," will rejoice to fee hie ■Divine Dignity fo well defended, againtl the infinuating artifices of pernicious error, and the bold attacks of open blafphemy. And it is his ardent prayer that God our. Saviour, to whom the Author dedicates the work *, would condefcend to ufe it as a mean of his own glory, •and of the church's good. To Him, therefore, " who " IS OVER ALL, GOD BLESSED FOR EVER," it is once more commended. * See the paragraph which concludes the Tvcrk, Goodman's Fields, January i, 1777, CON TENTS, h NTRODUCTION, SECTION- L If Jesl^s Christ be not the true God, of the fiirae eiTence with his Father, the Mahometan religion is preferable to the Chriflian religion, and Jesus Christ inferior to Mahomet. Cjiap. I. If Jesus Christ be not of the fame effence with his Father, the Chriftianity we profefs is a corruption of the Chriftian religion, and Mahomet- anifm the re-eflabUlhtnent of it. - - , Chap. II. If Jesus Chris r be not of the fame effence with his Father, Mahomet was a teacher raifed up of God to inftruél mankind- - - - - CuAP. III. if Jlsus Chris r be not of the fame cflencc with his Father, Mahomet was a great prophet, the gveatefl of prophets and preferable to Jesus Christ. Chap. IV. M Jlsus Chrisp be not of the fame cff^nce with his Father, Mahomet was more true, more wife, more concerned for the good of mankind, and more zealous for the glory of God, thi'.r. he. SECTION IL If Jesus Christ be not the true God, of the fame eiTence with his Father, the Sanhedrim did an a6l of Juftice in caufmg him to be put to death ; and the Jews had fufficient reafon to reje6l the preaching of his apoilles, when they called them to believe on him. - - . . Page ^5 i^ 17 29 41 CDI/T£NTS. Paire Chap. I. Je80s Christ Is called Go». - - - 4I Cmap. II. The argument continued. * " " 53 Chap. HI The principal lities and Chara(fters which, in the writings of the Prophets, form the idea of the true God arc applied to Jesds Chkis i\ ' ' 59 Chap. IV. Jesu» Cuais. declared to be Equal with God - - - - - - 71 Cmap. V. Jesus CnRifr received Religious Worlhip. 76 Chap. VI The charrélers of Jehovah's glory in the ancient Oracles, applied to Jtsus Ciik)s ; and the argument ariling from that application illuftriti-d. 85 SECT/ON HI, If Jesus Christ be not the true God, of the fame efTence with his Father, He and his apoftles have led us into a complicated and pernicious error. - 90 Chap. 1- The principles which we oppofe, obfcurc, depreciate, deftroy, thofe exalted ideas which Jesus gives us of his Father's Love and of his own Compaf- fion to finful men. - - - - $0 Chap. II. The doitrine of our adverfarics deflroys the idea which the Scriptures give us, of the Greatncfs of Gofpel royfteries, and the Nature of true Faith. - ii^ Chap, ill. The hypothefis of our adverfarics deprives Jesus Christ of his higheft honour; by makirg him pofiefs thofe Titles in a metaphorical fenfe, which the Scripture F.pplies to him in one that is proper. This proved by two inftances. - - " XI Chap. IV. According to the fentiments of our adver- farics, the Death (A Christ has no real Ufefulnefs in it. - - - - - 125 Chap. V. The fentlments'of our adverfarics render the language of Scripture obfcurc and falfe, abfurd and impious. - - - - -125 Chap. VI. Evidences of the fame truth, arjfmg from thofe palTagcs of Scripture, which exprefs the Fre- exiftence of Jesus Christ, - - - 141 Chap. VII. The fame Truth evinced, from Phil. ii. 5—8. .-..-. 147 Chap. VTH. The fame tiuth confirmed and illuftrated, from John i. i — 14. The Sociniun interpretation of this paflage confidered and expcfcd. - - - 153 Pag« Chap. ïX. TIîî fame Argument continued. - - i6i Chap. X. The Arian hypothefis cquitlly indcfenfible. j^i Cu.vr. XI. I'he Language of the Holy Spirit, on the Sociniau hypothcTis. is obfcure, abiurd, and uot coniiilciit with piety. - t - - i;^ SECTION- IV, If Jesus Christ be not oF the fame cffence with his Father, there is no harmony between the prophets and the apoflles, or between the Old Teftament and the New. - - 188 CuA", T. If Jf.su S Christ be not of the fame cfTence with his Father, the Prophets, who fpake of him, did not forefee things as they were to come to pafs. i8B Chai>. H. If Jesus Curis be not of the fame cffence with his Father., either the \poftles did not under- ftand the Prophets, or they dcûgned to betray us into error. -..--- 195 Chap. HI. The apoftlos did not apply the ancient oracles to Jesus Christ, by mere Allufion, or Accomodation. - • - « . jio SECTION V. If J2SUS Christ be not the true God, neither the ancient Jewilh, nor the Chriftian Religion, is attended with fafHcient Criteria to diilinguifh it from liUpoHure. - - - 216 Cttap, I. The propoution proved, in rcfpetSt of the Jewifti Religion. - - - - 2l6 CfiAP. II. The p'opofition proved, in refpeâ of the Chridiau lelig;i(»n - - - 22 6 CfiAT. lil. If J .sus CnRisi be not the true God, the Chiiftian Reli3;!on has no!: fufficient criteria, by which 10 diftinguilU it from Idolatry auJ Impotturc- - "^2.') Page CONTENTS, SECTION VL The principal obje6Hons anfwered ; and fome Confiderations, adapted to relieve the mind refpe61:ing the Diffi- culties which attend this Great Myf- tery. • - - . 239 Chap. I. Divine Revelation, not depraved Rcafon, to be our Guide in all inquiries of this nature. - - 239 Ckap, 11. An objcdion from the fuppofed Silence cf the Scripture, anfwered. - _ _ - 2^6 Chap. 111. An Objedion from John xvii. 3 anfwered. 256 Chap IV. An Objeélion from i Cor. viii. 4» 5, 6. anfwered. - - - - 277 Chap. V. An Objeâion from Luke i. ^S' anfwered. - 2S7 Chap. VI. Other Objeéïions anfwered. - - 298 Chap. VI 1. borne Confiderations adapted to relieve the mind refpedling the DiiEculties which attend this Great Myfiery. - - - - 3©3 ■I . i w i m Mitmmm ■» ' uu WiJiiuuw^ j i Hi.UfcMUMJULi MR,. ^ L)i.i nu i i.i»mj»-ifj iJLLL»i iri B ■ THE DEITY of JESUS CHRIST Essential to the CHRISTIAN RELIGION. INTRODUCTION. T KE ca}»ltal truths cf religion are Co clofe'y conne£led, that, like the principles of geometr)', Çow.ç of them ferve, as fo many flcps, by which to dcfccnd to the knowledge of others. In our examination of the principal evidences on which our faith is c(|-ab]ifhed, we were led by tiie truth of the exigence of God, to that of natural religion ; by the truth of natural religion, to that of the Jewiili religion ; and by the truth of the Jewifh religion, to that of the ChrifUan religion'"^. The mutual relation which thefe grand truths hare one to another, has led us a flcp further. We could not carefully examine the foundations of the Chridian religion, witlioul being convinced, tliat the fame principles edablini the Divinity of Jefus Chrifl — E(îablifh it in fuch a manner, that he who doubts, whether the Lord » Rffcrrlng to the Author's Trcaufu C« l/je T.idhcf the Chy'Jllin Rti'igion, 14 ix-rrjjLucricx, Meillah be truly and properly God, ou^bt a'fo to qucfllcui th« truih of the Scriptures, \>hich contain tbe Chrifiiim doctrine; and, thut whoever is afTurcd ilie N«.\v Tefla- ir.ent is divinely autbciitic, ought not to difpute theDcity ofChrifl. This is the general defîgn of the enfuing Bat, for the better under (landing it, one dïdindîon is highly necefTary. The Divinity of Jefus Chrift may- be confidercd, either as a m) i\cry conc^a/cd from us; or as a truth revealed to us. That our Lord is really a I3ivine Perfon, is a truth revealed; bat the modus of liis Divine Subfiflence, is an unfsarchable niyftery ; and, fo far from attempting to explai-n it, v%e ought rather 10 fhew, that it is inexplicable. Ail the difference betv/ecn the pcopî'e and their teachers, in this refpcft, \z. The ignorance of the people is modcfl and hanible ; they are not afliamed to own it. Bjt that of their teachers is haughty, and has recourfe to fcholaftie diftinitions, in order to conceal itfelf We do not, therefore, undertake to explain the myftery, but lo prove the fact. We fr.ali liave no rtcouîfe to matephyfical fpecuiations, to fiiew how the thing is; but we fhall inaheit appear, fiom divins Pwcvtlation^that it really is. ^ As my general dengn is to prove, that there is a ncccflary conneiftion between the Divinity of Chriil, and the truth of the Chriitian religion, I fiudi make it my principal erdeavour to fiiew, that they niuft (land, or fall, together. For this pu'-pofe, 1 fliall adopt 2: method which may feem a little i;cv.' and extraordinary ; but fj.ch as may, perhaps, be convincing. If Jefus Chrifl be not the true God, cf the fame tiTence with his Father, I fiiall {liew,That the Mahometan religion is preferable to Chriltianity, and Chrift inferior to Mahomet — That the Sanhedrim did an ad of juftice in caufing Jefus to be ])ut to death fcrr blafphemy — That He and his apoilies have led us into a complicated and pernicious error — That tliero is no harmony between the 0U\ and the New Tefto.ment — And, that ncirher the ancient Jewilh, nor ihe Chriilian religion, is attended with fufficicMn criîcri;! to didinguiih it from impofliirc. Which particulars I Ihall diitin'?v\ xxx accufe tn.em of fijcaking contrary to their c.-.vn l;gh'. ; nor judge them ua worthy of toleration in a Proteaar.t f^ate. — As to their canfe, I ought not to be cenfurcd, if I endeavour to reprefent it in its own colours — in ail that deforiTiity which necelTailly attends an hypothefls, that is contrary to Divine Revelation and the fjjirit of true religion. This is my duty, and one end of my miniflry. I ought not to omit any thing, which appears to be a lawRd and propable mean of convincing tbi^rp B 2 1 / j\- r jz CD uc ri c x, that oppofe the truth, and of reclaiming thofc who have wandered froni the path of duty. But it is far from being my defign to ufe hyperboHcal exprcfiions and declamatory language, in order to give an hideous defcription of a difguifcd dodrine. My intention is, to r.dduce fuch arguments from the Scripture as are pertinent and conclufive, and to propofe ihem in a plain manner ; having recourfe to the Divine tedimony and lirht reafon, for the eflablifhment of truth and the confutation of error. — May the wondkrful Counsel- i,OPv enlighten the mind and guide the pen of the writer! that this work may redound to the glory of God my Saviour and prove a bkfîlng to all its readers. Ameiî. ^7 SECTION I. If Jesus Christ be not the true God, of •the fame cflencc with his Father, the Mahometan rehgion is preferable to the Chridian religion, and Jesus Christ inferior to Mahomet. CHAPTER I. It" Jesus Christ be not of the fame eilerce with his Father, the Chriftiar.ity wc profcfs is r. corruption of the Chrifliaji .religion, arid Mahometanifni the re-eftabliiîiment ef it. TlL"^ AT there is an -infinite diflance between rtlie Creator and the creature, is a principle of natural 'Religion. God cannot, therefore, without the moft .hateful impiety, be treated as a creature ; nor can a .-creature, without damnable idolatry, be treated as a .God. If, then, Jefus Chrift be the Creator, he cannot be faid, xviihoat impiety, to be a mers creature : and, if he be a mere creature, he cannot, without idolatry, be acknowledged as God. Ccnfeqa^nlly, if we v. ho confider him, as of one efiencc with the Father, ami the eternal God, be i.:id<;r a miflake, we cannot be icicared from a charge of idolatry, fince. it is .as fuch that we wonliip him. We could not juftify our conduvfl, by faying; * we -' fincerely believe him to be God ; fo that though • there is an error in our judgment, yet there is no •\inficicliry in our hearts, our worfhip being .direded to Sl-CT. I. iS CHAP. 1. * God only.' For the fame reafon might ferve to excule all idolaters pafh, prefent, and future. The Heathens, who worfliippcd their Jupiter, really believed him to be God, and their ads of worfliip were intention- ally referred to the Supreme Being ; yet they were not the lefs idolatrous on that account. Nor ought we to imagine that a creature, on account of its fuperior excellence, may become the obje^fl of worfliip, which it would not be la'.vful to give to one of an inferior order. For they who worfliip the (hrs, are as really idolaters, asthcfe that worfiiip wood and (tone; iind they who worfl:iip angels, as thofe that worfliip the ■ilats : bccaufe idolatry does not conf:!!:, in rendering divine honouis to a creature that is comparc.t'ively low in the fcale of dependant exifbnce ; but in addreffing them to a mere creature» Here it will be faid, * It may be lawful to worfiiip * a creature, whom God is pleafed to inveft with his * glory ; as it is lawful to pay extraordinary honours to * a fubje6:, to whom the king orders they fliould be * paid.' — -But then it mull be granted, that it is never lawful to worfliip a creature, as the true God ; any more than it is to honour a fubjeft, by treating him as the real fovereign. I may venture to aflcrt, that -God neither would, nor could part with this character of his glory, in favour of anoditr. He could not ; For it is impoflible that he only fliould be the true God, and that another, who has not his efTence, fliould be fo too. He nvould not: For how could he will a thing, which, being <:ontrary to the truth, is contrary to his nature ? — Sup- pofe, then, that Chrifl is God's reprefentative, and that it is as fuch he is an objed of worfliip ; yet, not being •Cod, he cannot, without manifeil idolatry, be worfliipped as God. Again : Idolatry is a crime which violates the law QÎ God and deflroys the fpirit of piety : it is dire(5tly oppofite to the two great ends of religion ; which are, ^ie glory of God, and the Xalvftticn çf our fcHils* A-s ■jECT. I* 19 .CHAP. U to the former^ it evidently robs Jehovah of his glory, and invefts a creature with it. As to the latter^ the ■Tpirit of infallibility has declared, that *' idolaters fhall -** not inherit the kingdom of God." Hence it follows, that the Chriftianity we profefs, is a corruption of the ChrifUan religion ; and ihat Maho- metanifm is the re eflablifliment of it. For if Chridianity •in its primitive purity, reprefent and treat Jefus Chriit .as a mere creature ; we corrupt and fubvert it, A^hen we confiderand worfhip him, as the true God. If, then the religion of thofe who worfhip him as the Supreme Being, be a corruption of Chriflianity ; the Mahometan religion, which reprefents God as infinitely fuperior to Jcfus Chriff, muil be, in this refpcfl, the re-eflabli(hment of it. We have been told, indeed, by Epifcopius, * That * the Chridian religion is not a fciencc of bare contem- •* plation, but a pradical knowledge ; and, that it confifîs * in obedience, rather than in any abftraded fpeculations "* on the Deity.' I grant the principle, but deny that it is pertinently applied in the cafe before us. What, are thofe fentimcnts mers J peculations^ which are of fach importance, that v/e are guilty of idolatry, if they be ialle, and our adverfarics of blafphemy, if they be true ! If our Lord be of the fame effence with his Father^ ■sr, in other words, if he be God by nature ; he ouoht to be adored as fuch : and our opponents cannot, without the greateft impiety, refufe to acknowledge and wor/hip him under that moft exalted charaéler. Eut if he be not of one efTence with the Father, we cannot confider and addrefs him as the true Qoà^ without being guilty of idolatry. So that the great queflion here is, How may we avoid impiety, on the one hand; and idolatry on the other ? confequently, it is pradical and of the highefl: importance. The learned Arminian jufl mentioned, labours muchj therefore, to little purpofe, when he endeavours to prove, '\ That it is not eireiuiai to faJvation tQ knov/, whether «EC T. f. liO CHAP. I. •« [fefus Chrlft be a divine perfon, by eternal generation; * or whether, being a mere cre.uure, he be called God, ••on account of his niinilhy.* For, to prove ihat the knowledge of thefe things is not efTentiah he mufl: not 'Only Ihew, that the Sccinians may, without being idolaters, worlliip one '>vhGm they believe to be a mere man, by nature ; but alio, that we, without the guilt of idolatry, may adore Jefus Chii(t as God, though he be not fo in reality. If our belief of the erernal generation and confublbniiality of the Son of God, betray us into idolatry ; nothing can be more fundamental, or more necefiiiry, than a knowledge of thofe queftions w-hich Tcfpeél his generation and confubHantiality. But it is certain, that our dodiine, upon this rubj€6^, does lead us into idolatry, if we be in an error, as to the doflrine •itfelf. Por if Chtifc be not of the fame efier.ce with his Father, he is not God : and if fo, we cannot place him en the throne of God, by paying. divine honouis to hini without manifeft idolatry. Nor have we any excufe, by which to extenuate ihe impiety of cur conducT:. For, were we to fay, ' That ■* we worfhip him as the Supreme Being, bscauft we * verily believe him to be fo.;' the Heathens, as before obferved, might, on the fame principle, juttify the worship which they addrefled to Jupiter. ^ — Were we to ]jlead, * We are not to be blamed for worfhlpping him * as God, becaufe, though he be not fo, he deferves < our adoration ;' we fhould only change the ftatc of the queftion. For the quefHcn here, is not, whether he deferves adcration : but, whether we may adore him AS God, though he be not God. — Were we to aflert, * That nothing is abfolutely necelTary to be believed, -' performed, or avoided, in order to our falvation, but * what is mod evidently commanded, or prohibited in « the Scripture;* it would only ferve to condemn us. For what is more exprefsly contained in the Bible, than thofe precepts which require, that v/e fhould -jifcrihe.the ^lory of God to none but God.^ Qr, vù'M «ECT- î. 21 CHAP. î* is prohibited on more clreadrul pains than idolatry, v/hich puts the creature in the place of God ? — Were we to imagine, * That God would not condemn our * worihip, becaufe he aiT-inics to himfelf all the honours ♦ that are paid to his Son ;' a little relleflion would convince us of a great miftake. For if Chrilt be a mere creature, he cannot be called the Son of God, but in nn, improper and very remote fenfe. Confcquently, however highly exalted he may be above other creatures, yet the difproportion between him and God is greater, immenfcly greater, than that which fubfills between Gabriel and a worm. If, tlien, a very excellent creature would take it defervcdly ill, to have the honours which are due to himfelf transferred to one t'lat is mean and vile ; with much greater reafon will God be oifcnded, that the worfhip which is due to himfelf only, is addreiTed to Jefus Chrilt. But it is faid, *' Jesus Christ reprefcnts God.* True : It is, however, certain, that to reprefent God, is one thing ; to be God, is another. — ' But he is the Son of God.* Granted; Notwithftanding, on the Socinian principles, he bears that character only in a figurative fenfe; confequently, there is a greater dillance .between him and God, than there is between tiie meaned infe(51: and the moll: glorious "angel. "So that though it were proper to invert the vileft creature, with the titles and glories of the mod exahed ; it would not ' be lawful to pay to Jefus Chrift thof;; honours v.hich are .due to none but God. €ECT. I, tZ 'C«Ar. ÏÏ, CHA?rER IL Jf Jesus Christ be not of the fame ciîtr«:e \vlih lus Father Mahomet, was a, teacher xAlt^ up of Gcd to infirud md««. kmd. 1 T appe.irs, then, th^t tlie Mahometan religion IS, in fome refpeâs, the re-eirabliflm-ient of ChviHianity, if ChrilT: be not the true God. But I fua!! here be told, * That the religion cf the Arabian prophet, is • replete with fiction and impoflare.' Granted : Yet I beg leave to inquire, How it came to pafs that truth ?.nd error made i:^ Pcri»fl: an alliance in ii ? That Mahomet was an impodor, is acknowledged : that he abclifhed idolatry, mud alfo be allowed ; and thus two oppofite characters are ignited in him. If he turned a great part of the world from Chril'lian idolatry ; — for fo I call that worfiiip which Chriftians pay to Jefi^s Chrid, if he be not God; — by what fpirit performed he fo great a work? by the Spirit of God, or the fpirit of the devil? Tf by the latter^ how came he to abolilh idolatry ? If by the former^ how could he be an impoflor ? It may be objeâed, * Mahom.et condemned I'hc • worfhip of the Pagan idols, and fo the dilemma may ■* be retorted/ But there is a difference between the piinciples which he fuppofed, and thofe which he tflabliflied. The knowledge of the true God had been introduced among the Heathen, and Pagan idolatry was deftroyed, before he appeared in the world. It was not Mahomet, but Jesus Christ, by the preaching of his apodles, who produced thtfe great eifeoken by truth itfelf. If, then, we apply this piin^ipîe to the- cafe before us> we cannot bat conceive an high opinion of Mahomet, and acknowledge him to hà\'ç been a great prO|)het. It i"? no more than judicc to his character, if he was ihe perfbn who taught mankind the iniquity and the danger of confounding God with a creature, lor he has enlightened many nations and many ages. L,;k^ a wife and fincere v.-orPnipper of his M.iker, and the friend of mankind, he has placed Gcd on the throne of God, and the creature in the rank of a creature. What more lav.'ful, v/lut more holy, than fach a dengn ? What could be nobler, what greater, th in fuch a work ? If Mahomet have indeed enlightened tiie world, by afferti ng die rights of the Deity, and overturning the Chrittian idolatry, he deferves thofe titles of honour which the MufTulmen give him; and we may boldly affirm, that he ought to be confidered, as a teacher of truth and a ;;rophet of God — a prophet, grcatei than any that were «ECT. I. 24 CHAP. II, under the lav/, greater than Jefus Chrift. Thefe are fh-ange and fhocking paradoxes, yet certain and una- voidable truths, if Chrilt be not the true God. 1 faid, he is a teacher of truth. This cannot be denied, while he teaches mankind fuch tflential truths. This firft principle of facrcd truth, A mere creature ought not to he ivorjlr.ipped as God; is the foundation of natural religion, as (iii{.inguifl;»fcd from fuperilition — of the Jewiih rehgion, as oppofed to Pagan idolatry — and of the ChriQian religion, confidered in its purity. Mahomet, then, who efiablifhed his religion on this grand principle^ is a teacher of truth, of divine truth ; even of that truth Vvhich, of all others, is mofl important and eflential tcx religion. * But Mahomet aims at the gratification of fordid * paflions, and is rather a teacher of the flefh than of the * ipiiit/ If fo> we have reafon to wonder that fo much truth is attended with fo much impurity and vice ; for light and darknefs have r-o communion. If, then, he did not aft by the Spirit of God, it muft have been by the fpirit cf the world ; and if by the latter, then not by the former. We muft, therefore, inquire after the characters of thefe two fpirits in him. — We are tokl, that * He is impure in his maxims and morals ' This is a charader of the fpirit of the world ; but the fadt muft be admitted with fome reflridion. For Mahomet reformed religion, by overturning the Chriflian idolatry and caufing God only to be worlhipped, through a great part of the world. This is, undoubtedly, a charaâer of the Spirit of God, and a ftrong prefumption in his favour. For how fliould an impoflor promote the good- pleafure and the honour of God, by enlightening man- kind and deftroying idolatry ? What, has God inve(ted animpollor with the higheil charaéler of his own prophets, and with that of his own Son 1 For the prophets, who predicted the coming of the MefTiah, foretold alfo, as a charadlerof his appearance, that he fliould deflroy idola- try. Vv^hat, has the mofl HoJy made an impollor the SECT. I. 25 CHAP. ir. inflrumejit of his mercy and the minifrcr of his glory ! What fiiouid we have thought of the divine conduct:, if God had chofen devils incarnate to be his meffsngers to mankind and preachers cf his gofpel ? We fhould cer- tainly have concluded, either that he intended to render the gofpel detellable, by putting it into the mouths c£ devils ; or, that he defigned to confecrate thofe apoflate fpirits, by making them the depofitaries cf his truth, and miniders of his grace *. This comparifon is tl c fitter, for its being odious, to illuflrate the point. For v/hat we fay of the devil, may be faid of feduccrs, his miniflers, in generr.l, and of M.ihomet, in a particular manner. That is, if he, being an impoftor, was chofea of God to re elhiblifli the true religion, by dcflroying the Chriilian idolatry ; Providence muft have deligned, either to render religion infamous, or to confecrate the impoflor by choofing and employing him in a work fo great, fo glorious, i'o divine: b^ ch which fu^^pofitions are impious and abominable. • The Evangelical Irficry ar.i rhc A(fl<; of the arnflle? inform us, it mull be acknov;Iedgcd, of attcfÎL:tions that were given to the dignity of oizr Lord's perfon vltkI (he truth of h.is gof^^el, by infernal fpirits. But tlicre is a great and nianife.;t (l'iïeronce, between thofe occafional. trar.fient, and rejcxfled te.limonie»! ; and the cafe which is here fuppofjj. See AZin/: i. :3. 24, 25. LrjhW, 33, 34, :^5. A5ÏS xvi. 17, 18. \ SLCT. I. 26 CHAP. Ill, CHAPTER II L If Jesus Christ be not of the fame cfT-'ncc v/ith his FaUuT, Mahomet was a great prophet, the greatell of prophets, and preferable to Jesus Christ. ivi AKOMET, on the principles of our oppo- ncnh, v/as a great prophet, and fuperior to any of the prophets under the Old TelhinieiU. This will appear, if the foliovving things be confidcrcd. The ancient prophets fpake only to the people of Ifrael ; but Maho- met to the ïvmH and nioll confidcrable pai t of tlie world. Of :heni there was a long fucceirion, yet not effedual 10 prcfcrve a iingle nation from idolatry; but he had no need of a conripanion, or fucceflcr, to banifli idolatry for ever, from thofe countries where his dodrine has been received. They were raifed up in an extraordlnary manner» and wroughtviriousmiracles, in orderto dcilroy idolatry ; but he delivered a great part ef the world fi cm the Chridian idolatry, without the afllilance of one miracle. Mofes, though the greateft of the ancient prophets, did not know God as he is ; Jefus Chrid, and he only, knew him perfeélly andmadehim known to men. But if the doélrine of our adverfaries be true, Mahomet has made him known much better than Jefus Chrifl: : which leads us to fhew, that theforwcr, accor- ding to their hypcthefis, ought to be confidered as a greater prophet than the laJier. This appears from his dodrine, and the fuccefs of his miniftry. As to the fuccefs of his miriifry^ the thing fpeaks for itfelf. Jefus, indeed, caufed his gofpel to be preached and received throughout the world, but then he has hardly deilroycd one kind of idolatry, before his followers lapfe ir.to another : for they are no fooncr delivered from Pagan, than ihey fall into Chriftian sr^CT. I. 27 CHAP, u:, idolatry. But Mahomet eflablilTied his religion on in mer foundations. He took wifer ard jufter meafurts, to preferve his difciples from relapfing into idolatry, in future ; nor have they ever difcorered an inclliiation fo to do. The difadvantage of Jefus Ch.-ill, upon the comparifon, arifes from this : The dovflrine cf Mahomet has in it a natural charaifler, wh-'ch h mo;e opnofiie to idolatry, than the doâiine of Cnvift. The reader, in order to be convinced of this, need only to confidcr t])C language of Jefus, in the vvriiings of the New 'i'ellament, and compare it with ihc ia.iguage of Maho- niet, in his Koran. Jcfus tells us in his New Ttdamcnt, ** Th.-.t he was *' before John the Baptii'l, ard before Abraham — ** That he had a glory wiîh his Father, before the world ** was created — That he was in the b.ginnirg ; that h:: ** was with God, and was God — That all things were ** created by him, whether they be vifible or invifible — ** That all things were not only created by him, but ** for him ; and that by him all things confi.l — That he ** laid the foundations of the earth, and that the heavens ** are the works of his hands — That he is the x-\lph.i and «< Omega, the Beginning and th3 End, the Fir(l; and *' the Lad — And, that there is one Lord, Jcfus Chriil, ** by whom are all things, and we by him." — In the fame facred rule of our fiiih and pradice, he is called, ** The Son cf God — his own Son — and his only ** begotten Son." He is further called, *' The Lord «< — Lord and God — Gob with us — God m?.nifeli i:i *■• the flefli — The true God — The great God and *' Saviour." And, that we might not be at a lofs for the f(.nR*, in which thefe names and chara.^ers are g^ven to him, \ve fiiid him applying to himfclf many orack-s of th- prophets, which undoubtedly fp'cak of the true God, and contain the chara^flers of his peculiar glory. — Solomon, for inflance, addrefiing himfelf to the God ci Ifiacl, at the dedication of the temple, (kid ; *' Thou, C 2 >LCT. I. C8 CHAP. III. " even tliou only, knowefl the hearts of the children of *' men.'* Jefus claims th.s Divine prerogative, in the moft fo'emn manner, as that which fhall cngaj^c the icar and wonder cf all his dliciples. " All the churchjs '•T.'.ail know that I am He which search eth the " REINS AND HEARTS ; and I will give unto every one *• of ycu according to your works." — It is written in the law, according to the expofuicn of Jefus Chrilt ; '= Thou fliak worfliip the Lord thy God, and him only '' flîah thou ferve." Yet an infallible v/riter afTiires us, that when God brought his Firfi-begotten into the world lie faid, "Let all the angels of God w^orship him.'* — Concerning Jekotah the pfalmifl: (ings; " Cfold " liaft thou laid the foundation of the earth, and the *' heavens are the work of thy hands. They (hall •* periih, but thou (halt endure ; thou art the fame, '• and thy years Hîall have no end." That thefe things are raTcrted of God none can doubt ; and that they are j.pplicable to none but Him, is, I fhould think, ec»ually evident. Yet it is paii: denial that this text is exprefsly Rpplicd to Jefus Chiill. " Unto the Son he faith, Thy ** throne, O Gc;d, is for ever and ever — And, thou *' Lord, in the beginning, haft laid the foundation of *v the earth, and the heavens are the works of thine '• hands. They fhail perifli, but thou remained: — thou '• art the fame, and thy years Hiall not fail." — It is cf Jfhovah thofe words were fpoken; " The chariots " of God are twenty thoufind, even thoufands of angels. '* The Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the hc^ly •« place. Thou haft afcended on high ; thou h ul *' led c?.p"i\ity captive ; thou haft received gins for men." God only has legions of angels under his command and Lt his difpofal. God only can difpenfe heavenly dona- tives to rebellious men. And yet Jefus Chrift, by the pen of his apoftle, applies this paftage to himfelf, in the moft direa: manner. " Wherefore he faith, When he *• afcended up on high, he led captivity captive, and *' g^ve gifts unto men. Now that he afcended, what CECT. I. 29 CHAP. IV, ** is it but that he alfo defcendv^d firft into the h)\ver *' parts of the earth?" — ^Once more: It is God, tl;o infinite, eternal Jehovah, vho fpeaks in the followinc^ fjbhnie pafTage ; " I have fworn by myfclf, the v/ord *' is gone out of my mouth in righteoufnefs, and fliall " not return, thu unto me every knee fiiall bow, everj»- <* tongue fliall fwear." This text a!fo is apphed to -Jefus Chriil, by his faithful for van t Paul. »' We fliall *' all (land before the judgment feat of Chiifl. For it *' is written, As I live faith the Lord, every knee fliall *' bow to me, and every tongue fhall ccnfcfs to God." — ■Quotations of a fimilar kind, might be eafily multiplied ; but thcfc may fjflice to fliew, hov/ Jt-fus Chrift fpeaks cf hlmfelf, and taught his apofties to fpeak of him. • i UyaW now proceed to Ihew, in the following Chapter, hc\/ Mahomet fncaks of himfelf, and how carefully he guards again (t idolatry. CHAPTER JV. IT j£St;s CuRîîT be not of the Hime cfRnce with his Father, Mahomet was more true, more wife, more concerned for tJie ^ood of mankind, and more zealous for the glory of God, than he. V V E have feen that Jefus Chrifl equals him- felf with God, by faying of himfelf fuch things, and applying to himfelf fuch oracles, as cannot belong to any but the Supreme Being. — Thus did not Mahomet. For he declares, in almoll every page of his Koran, that none but the eternal Father is God. He indeed, calls liimfelf a prophet, a man divinely fent ; but he lays no claim to Divinity. He acknowledges that Jefus CliriR iiad a divine miflicn j but will rot allow him to be called c 3 SECT. I. 30 CHAP. IV. God, nor the Son of God. There is not the leaft ambiguity in his language, on this imjiortant rubjeiH:. He plainly alTcrts, that they who fay, * The Son of Mary is God, are infidels.' And avers, * That Chri(t, the Son of Mary, is no more lîian God's envoy.* That the * Chii.lians are infidels, by making //;;/vr gods, * when there is but one.^ Nay, he thus reprefents God as complaining to Jefus Chrift ; < O, Jefus, Son of Mary, * do(i thou perfuade mankind to put thy Mother and * Thee in the place of God, and to worfhip you, as if * ye were Gods ?' To which he reprefer'.ts Jefus as anfwering; * God forbid, that I fliould fay any thing * contrary to the truth ! Thou knoweft whether I have * taught that dodrine. or no. Thou knoweft the fecrc^s * of all hearts.' — He requires that men fliould * wotfnip God, the Creator of heaven and earth ; who * made the light and the darkncfs.' And he c?.l!s thofe ' infidels, who fet up Chriit, as equal to God-' Hence it appears, on the principles of our adverfaries:, that Mahomet was more true^ more ivifey more concerned for the good of manhind^ and more zea'ous for the glory of God, than Jefus Chriil. This conclufion wc abhor, as full of blafphemy ; and yet we cannot but confider i: as unavoidable, if the fentiments we oppofe be true. If Chrlfl be not of the fame efTence with his Father, Mahomet was more true than he; at leaft, in thofe things which regard the fundamentals of religion and the glory of God. This will appear if you rccollefl the manner in which our Lord fpeaks of himfelf, and how, by the diredion of his own Spirit, his apoflles reprefent him, in the Script ure-teRimonies adduced in the preceding chap- ter; and compare them with thcdeclarations of Mahomet, which are diredly contrary, as is manifeft from the quotations juft now produced from his Koran. In the former, Jefus is defcribed as bearing divine charafiers and poflefTing divine perfedions ; as performing divine v/orks and as being the true God ; but in the Litter, as a mere creature, and infinitely inferior to Jehovah. i SLCT. I. 51 CHAP. IV. The language of the Bible, theiefure, and the languap^e of the Koran, cannot be both true, beciiufe tlity are contradictory. But that of the Koran, which exprefsly afllrts that Chrifl is a mere creature, and ouglit not to be confidered as the Supreme Being, is not faife, if he be indeed a mere creature. The inference, then, is plain and unavoidable, though fliocking and horrid ; it is the language of the Bible, tlie language of Jcfus Chiifl, that is void of truth. It will be faid ; * The exprefTions of Mahomet are * proper and literal, but'thole of Chi ill figurative and * hyperbolical ; fo that, though contrary in appearance, * yet not in reality.' But what pi oof is there, that the language of Chriit is figurative ? BeHdes, it is unlawful, it is highly criminal, to make ufe of fuch figures as are injurious to the glory of God. We could not, without profanenefs, fiiy ; Such a man is equal to God, in ^^■ifdom and power, in greatnefs and grandeur. And it would be but a poor apology for the ufe of fuch expref- (ions, were we to endeavour to defend them by fayirp ; They were applied, and are to be undcrflocd,' in a hyperbolical, and not a literal fenfe. For we fhould foon be told, that fome figures are impious; and that fuch hyperboles as equal the creature with the Creator, T.re to be deteded, as abfolutely unlawful. — If in the {lyle of the world, mortal beauties be called cJoralle; if they (>e fpoken of as fo many dïvitùtles; the language, though figurative, is manifcllly profane ; though nobody can be fo far deceived by it, as to miflake a beautiful woman for a divinity. For if thefe figures, either direâly, or indire<511y, imply a want of reverence for God, it is enough to denominate them impious. If, .then, in human language, we ought not to fufter fuch figures as indicate a want of refped for the Deity; much lefs ought fuch expreffions to be ufed in a language Ticted and divine, as is that of the Bible. And if fuch liyperboles be infufferable, when doing honour to mortal 'beauties, whom we cannot pofiïbly miftake for the true SECT. I. 32 CHAP. IV. God ; how much more dangerous and iniquitous would they be, when ufed concerning a fubjecl who might, as the event has fliewn, in refpeft of Chrill, be eafiJy taken for the Supreme Being ! Again : If Jefus Chriîl be not of the fame effence with his Father, Mahomet was much nv'ifcr tiian he. As wifdom conflits in choufmg the be!t means for obtaining a propofcd end ; we need only examine, What w^as the end of each, in eH^abhiliing his rehgion ; and then inquire, What method the one and the other took, to fucceed in their defigns — Mahomet's deiign v/as, as he declares, to make known the true God. as exalted far above all creatures — to make him known, as the only object of religious worfliip ; who ought to be dirtinguifhed from all other beings, even from Chrill himfelf : maintaining, that Jefus is far from partaking with his Father in the glories of the Deity. Of thefe things Mahomet endeavours to perfuade mankind. And for this purpofe he makes ufe of plain, and Hrong, and proper exprcaions. He loudly and vehemently declares, that they who treat Jefas Chrift as God, are idolaters ; v/hich is the direâ: way to accomplifh his defign. — It is fuppofed alfo, that the great end of Jefus Chrift is to glorify God. To glorify Gody is, according to the language of infpiration, to exalt him far above all other beings. The ancient prophets foretelling that God fliould be glorified, in an extraordinary manner, in the latter times, exprefs their ideas in the following words ; ** The lofty looks of men fhall be humbled, and the *' haughtinefs of man (hall be bowed down, and the *' Lord alone shall be exalted in that day." But Chrift debafes God, at the very time he profefics to exalt him ; for, by his exprefTions, he puts himfelf in the place of God. This he does, when he calls himfelf God ; when he claims divine perfedions ; when he attributes to himfelf the work of creation ; and when he applies to himfelf thofe oracles of the prophets which difplay the efTfntial chara(5lers of the Supreme Being. SECT. :. 33 CÎIAP. IV. If it be faiJ, « It is uifncient that Chiift declares, h]s ' Fcther is greater than he :^ I anfwer, It would be a haughty kind of modelly for a mere creature to fay, T iie* Fornier of all ihi;;gs is greater than I. Neither Mofes nor Ifaiah, nor any of the prophets, ever ufcd fach langusge. A loyal fuojet*! never affe^s to fay, The king is greater than I. That is taken for granted. Nor will a holy creature make ufe of fuch language, concerning his Creator ; becaufe it woild be, in fome f:;nfe, to compare himfelf with the infinite God.— BefidcG, what would it avail for Jefus, once in the courfe cf his converfe on earth, to fay, *' My Father is greater '* than I ;" vhen in the general tenoar of his conduct and Lnguagc, and in the language he tau;^ht his difciples, he fpeaks and a;1s as if he were the true God ? It may, perhaps, be replied, ' Kere you beg the * quelUon : for thofe exprelTions, from which your * conclufion is drawn, require a very diiTcrent interpre- * tâtion.' VvHien, for inilance, Jefas is called God, Our adverfaries will have the name to fignify, that he was fent from God and reprcfents God. When he is faid to have *' made the woilds;" the meaning is, that he made the happinefs of the age to come, or the kingdom of the Nlefliah, which was fo eagerly expected by the ancient Jews. When it is faid, " He was ia *' the beginning,*' and ** all things were made by •' him ;" the exprefllons mean, that he was from the time of John the Bapilfl, is the author of the gofptl, and of all that is done under that difpenfaiion. When he is called, *' God manifeft in the flefh;" the character fignifies a creature that reprefents God. And when it is faid, that *' he laid the foundation of the earth, and ** the heavens are the works of his hands ;" the exprefi fions are ufed and the works afcribed to him, by way of accomodation, and not in a literal and proper fenfe. — A fmall (liare of common fenfe is quite fufficient to (hew how unnatutal and violent thele interpretations are. But, fiippofing they were to the purpofe, it could nof SECT. I. 34 CHAP. IV. be denied, that thefe expreffions of Scripture, if they mufl: be taken according to thefe explanations, are very obfcure and equivocal. It could not, I fay. be denied ; fmce the far greater part of the Chriftian world has been ignorant of their meaning for fo many ages ; and fmce the firft imprellion they naturally form on our minds, fuggeds the propriety of a very different interpretation. This evinces, if I may fay it without blafphemy, that Chrid was not {o prudent in the choice of his language as Mahomet. For that pretended prophet always fpeaks in a clear, firong, peremptory manner, in order to fhew, that it is not lawful, on any confideration, to reprefent a creature as pofTefTed of the characters and properties of God. Whereas Chriiland his apoflles have ufed many exprefnons that are obfcure and equivocal ; fuch as, in their mofi common acceptation, feem to invefla creature, a mere man, with the glories of the Deity : wc being obliged to underdand the terms of v.hich a difcourfç confifls, in their common and natural fignification, and not in one tliUt is uncommon and forced. Confcquently the language of Mahomet is more proper to glorify God, than the language of Chrid; and, therefore, if the defign of the Litter was to honour and exalt God, he has not fuccceded in it fo well as the former. Further ; If the fentiments of our adverfaries be true, Mahomet was more concerned for the good of mankind than Jefus Chrill:. This appears from hence. A prudent and diligent endeavour to preferve men from iilolatry, is one of the greatcfl: marks of a fincere regard to their happinefs ; becaufe idolatry deftroys their fouls, by excluding them from the kingdom of heaven. If, then, Jefus Chrift be not a divine perfon, of the fame effence with his Father, he has not taken proper meafures to preferve men from tlse dreadful evil of idolatry, while Mahomet has done it efreclually : for he has aboli(hed the Chridian idolatry in a great part of the world, and laid fdch foundations of his own religion, that a man cannot be guilty of idolatry, without firil chafing to be SECT. ï. 35 CHAP, IV. his difciple. But as for Chrift, he has given occafion to it ; he has laid a foundation for it. For he does not onjy permit and diredt his difciples to give him the tides of the Supreme Being ; but alio to afcribe to him the perfedions and works of the Deity, and to apply to Jnni many of the fubHmeft oracles of the Old Teftunient, which relate to the God of Ifrael. It was, for inftance, a very furprlGng thing, that Jefus, when he appeared to Thomas, after his refurrec- tion, fhould fuffer him to cry out, •' my Lord, and My God!" without faying a word to him about the impiety and blafphemy of an exclamation, which treats liie creature as if he were the Creator. Thomas, before, was an unbeliever; now he is an idolater. Till that inHant, he would not believe that Jefus was rifen ; he ccnfidercd him as a man lying under the power of death; but now, on a fudden, he addrcfies him as God ; he bows and adores. Of the two extrem.es, the latiei is moft condemnable ; for unbelief is not fo criminal as idolatry. That diflionouring Jefus Chri/l ; this ufurping the throne of God. Better for Thomas, therefore, to have perfided in this unbelief, than, by renouncing it, to fidl into idolatry. And yet — Grange indeed! flrange to afîoniflimcnt ! w ho can account for it ? Jefus upbraids him only with ihe former ; not at all with the latter. — Befides, as our Lord could net but know what an impref- fion thefe woids of his amazed and adoring apoftle would make on the minds cf men ; as he !;new th.at the Jews, deceived by exprefhons lefs acceptionable than thefe, had accufed liim of blafphemy ; and as he knew that thefe very exprefixns would give occafion to Chriflians in fuc- ceeding ages, to treat him as the true God ; ic is evident that he ci ght, from a ccncern for tlie good of mankind, to have ftridly prohibited all expreflions, which tended to make fucli a dangerous impreflion. And yet he rot only permits his difciples io fpenk after this m=anner ; but dire cflence with his Father, then it is evident, that v/hea he attributes to himfelf the names and perfections, the works and honours of God, he fpcaks açjrceably to trufi', becaufe he is God : he fpeaks tvi/efy; for he ufcs the fittelt exprelTions to convey his own ideas, and to obtaia the end intended : he fpeaks like one concerned for the good of manh'ind; becaufe he appears unwilling that we fhoald be ignorant of a truth fo capital and fundamental: and he fpeaks as cne that is ^salons for ths glory of Gcd; becaufe we cannot negleiTi our duty to him, without otfendino Jehovah. Confequently, Mahomet has not fpoken conformably to truth; for he has maintained that Jefus Chril!: is not, v/hat he really is : nor confonant to his ozun dejlgn of glorifying God; becaufe, by dif- honouring Chrift, he injures God himfelf: nor yet agreeably to a concern for th:: happ'inefs of men; feeing he tsiiclies them to bhifpheme Jefjs Chrift, which expofes to a divine curfe. To the tcnour of my arguing ftfvera! objefllons, T am aware, will be made. It will be faid, for infbnce j * Mahomet is cliargeab'e with not having formed fufTici- * ently high ideas of Jcf^s Chrilt.' Be it fo ; the injury which religion has faflained, in that refpe^fl, is very inconfiderable ; compared v/ith the advantage it has received from him, by deftroying thcfe extravagantly exalted notions which men had formed of the Son of Mary. For there is no very great harm in reprefenting a mere creature as lefs excellent than he really is ; efpecially, if that creature be the idol of mankind; which, on the principles of oar opponents, was the cafe here. But effeclually to teach men, not to confound the creature wiih the Creator, is a ca|>ilal branch of religious in(hu<îtian. -Mahomet looked upoaCLiilt as 6::CT. îr 38 CHAP. IV* a mere nr^n, yet as a man fent from God ; and it is> principally, under this view that our adverfaries would have us confider him. If, then, the author of the Koran abolifl-». idolatry, and by fo doing exalt God, as riuch as men had before debafcd him ; he may very well be pardoned the fmall fault, of not fufliciently honour- ing a mere man. — * But fuppofmg Mahomet had an * advantage, in fome refpe^Sts ; this does not hinder * Jefus Chrid from having a far greater, in others/ As the two great ends of religion are, the glory of God and the happinefs of men ; and as Mahomet has fucceeded better than Jefus Chrift, in his defign of glorifying God and preferring men from idoîùtry ; it follows, that he ought to have the preference. For, on the h)pothefs which v.e oppofe, Chrifl: is fo far from honouring God, that he robs him of his glory, and Mahomet redores it to him. — * Mahomet only pretendedy never fincerely * defigned, the advancement of God's glory/ I reply, according to the m.axini of Jefas Chri(i, " teachers are ** to be knov/n by their fruits." — * He wrought «0 * miracles.'' Granted : but it is not effentiai to a true prophet to work miracles, as appears by the example of Joh.i the Baptift. Befides, the law teaches us, not to judge of a doilrine by its miracles, but of miracles by the dodrine. — ' Chriil was foretold by the ancient * prophets ; but Mahomet could never boall of any fuch * thing.' But can any fubilantial reafon be afligned, why the ancient oracles ftioald not foretel the coming of Mahomet, who defhoycd idolatry in the mo'l coiifidei able part of the world ; when they foretold the appearance of a man who has been the idol of the Chridians for fo many ages ? Of a man who, by his own do^crine, and that of his apoftles, gave occafion to this dreadful idolatry, to the dilnonour of God and the ruin of millions ? Were the coming and miniftry of a mere man, that wouldequal himfelf with the eternal Sovereign, a proper fubjc^^ of prophetic elolied v/ith the idea of thofe perfefiions which ■* are naturally figniikd by it : for he is faid to be equal ■* with God, after havnig divine pcrfe^Ttions afcribed to * him. We cannot but conclude that he is really equalled * with God ; becaufe thofe oracles which fpeak of God * only, arc applied to him/ — But thefe things deferve a more particular confideration. Every one knows, that we all naturally fcruple to take upon us the name, God. This backwardnefs mufl arife, either from the reverence we have for the Deity, 'Or from fjme other pi inciple. If the latter, what is it ^. \( ûïQ. farmery it mull be either from the regard we liavc ibr the Supreme Being, or from the refpeft we have for fome fubordinate divinity. It cannot be out of refpcifl for a fubordinate deity ; for they who deny the exiftencc of any fuch being, will not, dare not, call themfelvcs •by the name God. If out of regard for the Supreme ^eing, it muU be becaufs we arc fully perfuadcd, that szcT. II. 44 CHAP. r. v/e fhouid injure him, and be guilty of a capital crime, vere we to call ourfelvcs by the name, God , or by any other name that is peculiar to him. It" fo, we cannot but confider him as an impious wretch, who, not being God, dares to take that name upon him The names, Jesus Christ, Saviour, and Re- deemer OF THK WORLD, are not rcore peculiar to th»« Son of Mary, than is the name, Goo, to the Supreme Being. For as no Chrillian will give thofe names to any but the Son of the Virgin ; fo no Jew dares to apply the name, God. to any but the Great Supreme. And as Chrifiians no fooner hear this gracious and glorious name, Jesus Christ, than they tJiink of Him that \vas conceived in the womb of Mary ; fo tlie adorable name, God, is no fooner pronounced among the Jews, than they hare an idea of Him that created heaven and earth; except there be fome intimation given of its being ufcd in an improper fenfe. As, therefore, a man who ihouid now call himfelf Jesus Christ, and defirt to be treated as the Saviour of the world, would be jufliy condem.ned of horrid impiety; fb, if Jefus took upon him the name, God, without being God, th^ Jews might judly accufe, condemn, and punifti him for blafphemy. It will not avail to fay, * Though Jefus took upon * him the name, God ; yet he gave fufficient notice that * he was not God.' For it does not appear that he gave any notice of it ; at lealt, not JuJ/lcleTit notice. The contrary is evident from his language and condud. But, if he be not God, why does he take a name which had been long confecrated to that Supreme Being I If he be not God, wliy does he permit men to adore him ? adoration being due to God only. — Befides, as it would be abfurdly impious for a man ivho confefTes, that he is not Jefus Chrift, to take upon him the names and receive the honours which are due to that Divine Saviour only; fo it is a compound of ttbfurdity and blafphemy for one who is not Gt>d, xo SIECT. ïî. 45 CHAP. I. take upon hirn the names and attribntes of God ; and, by receiving adoration, to ufurp the honours which are due to none but God. If Mofes, when returning from the mount with his face fhining, by reafon of his intimate converfe with Jehovah, had prefumed to call himfelf God; to attribute to himfelf Divine perfei5lions ; and to demand the adoration of the people, though he was knowa to be a mere man ; the chofen tribes would have had fufhcicnt ground to reject, condemn, and punifn him as afeducer, noLwithftanding the wonderful miracles that were performed by him, For, by fuch a conduct, he would have violated the firft command of the law, at the very time in which it was given. Jehovah had faid, " Thou **" {halt have no other gods before mc ;" and yet he would have put himf«lf in the place of God. — If, then, the ancient Ifraelites would have done well to rejeâ: Mofes, in the cafe fuppofed ; the Sanhedrim had reafon to rejed the pretenfions of Jtfus Chrift, and to condemn hlni for blifphemy, when he cither required, or permitted. Divine honours to be addrcffed to him. For when the names and glory of God are ufurped, neither miracles * nor the dignity of the perfon accufed, can, in the leaft, vindicate his conduct. Not miracles: becaufj they cannot authorize blafphemy. Nay, blaf- phemy is a fufficient ground of utterly rejcifling thofe works, however wonderful, which are wrought in favour of it. Not i.bâ dignity of ths perfon: becaufe robbing God of his glory is a crime, by (o much the more heinous, by how much the more excellent the perfon is that commits the horrid a6t. Should the head of a family, for inflance, call himfelf king ; under a pretence that he poffelTes autho- rity over his children : fhould he frequently fo call himfelf, without any reftritflion, or explanation, and * Admitting, for the fake of argument; thnt fuch an ufurfc*- could pt-rfornj rcul miriicles. SECT. II. 46 CHAP. I. alfo require to be honoured as a king; he would involve himfelf in much guilt. Bat the crime would be mere aggravated, if a magiflrate (hould ufurp the name aod the honours of majefty, among his fellow-citizens ; becaufe it would be of more dangerous confequence to the ilate. And it would be (iill greater, if the governor of a province were to do fo ; and greater yet, in proportion to the dignity of the guilty perfon. — Thus the name, God, being, by a mod ancient and holy ufe, appropriated to Him who made heaven and earth ; the application of it to any other is fo far from being juftified, by the excellence of the creature who dares to afTamc it, that he is, on that very account, fo much the more guilty of impiety and blafphemy. The name, God, in our language, and 0i«: in Greek, anfwcr thofe auguft and venerable names which the Supreme Being appropriates to himfelf, in the Old Teftament: names which ought to be facred to Him, becaufe he took them on himfelf, and becaufe they were to didinguilli Him from all his creatures. One of them (ignifies, He that is sufficient; to denote, that all other beings have need of God, but that He has no need of them. Another fignifies, I am ; or, I AM THAT I am; to indicate, that God is felf-exifient and independent, unchangeable and eternal. I omit feveral others, which might be mentioned ; but it may be cbferved of them in general, that they exprefs fuch an eminence of perfection and glory, as cannot agree to any but the mod High. In the language of the New Teftament, and in that of the Septuagint, are two names, 0s«^, and KCptog ; intended to exprefs v.hat is fgnificd by the various charafrers which our Maker affumcs, in the Hebrew oracles. And, certainly, we ought not to iniagine tliat the names, which God hath fet apart for himfelf in the Nev/ Teftament, are lefs facred, or lefs proper to him, than thofe by which he revealed himfelf in the Old. For if it was then iiecefU'.ry, that God fnould be diltin- SECT. ir. 47 CHAP. I. guhlied from ?M his creatures ; and if, on that account^ he took on hiiii fucb names as exprefs his elleniial glory ; there mud be the fame propriety, and an equal neceflity, now. Nay, it is more nece-Tary now, that the grand, the infinite di(lin6tion betv/ecn God and his nobleft: creatures fliould be difpbyed and aflerted ; becaufe this is the time, in which it was foretold, that " God alone ^^finuld be exaked.^' — So that, as there v/ould have been evident and abundant reafon, to condemn and punidi a man for biafpiiemy, who, under the Old Tc(tament, fliould have ufjrped the name Jehovah, with the ado- ration due to him v*'ho calls that name his own ; fo nothing can be more apparent than llîs impiety of him, who fliculd now ufurp the name, God, and receive that %yorniip which has been always paid to the mod High only, under that charader. When Herod, making an oration to the people, was fmitten by divine vengeance, for receiving this impi- ous acclamation, " It is the voice of a god, and not ^* of a man !'' neither the people, nor he, could confider it as literally true. Herod, elated as he v.as, did not believe himfcif to be God ; nor could the multitude fuppofe that their king was ali on a fudden become the Supreme Being ; yet his impiety met with exemplary puniiliment — If Jefus Chrifl:, therefore, be a mere man, he cannot be acquitted from a charge of blafphcmy, by pleading ; * That he declared himfelf to be a man, * and that he acknowledged his Father to be greater * than he.' Becaufe a man may be guilty of horrid impiety, in receiving Divine honours, without either believing or declaring, that he is the true God ; as appears by the example of Herod. For he v;ho ufurps the glory of God, though it be but in part, is guilty of blafphemy ; and he who afcribes it to an ufurper, is guilty of idolatry. Have not the Jews, then, furncient reafon to abide by the fentence of their Sanhedrim, and, on the principles of our adverfaries, to maintain ; That Jefus Chriil was juftly condemned and puttodeatb, having been convided SECT. II. 4% CI-IAP. I, of blafphemy ? And what 'can be faid in vindication cf our Mefïïah ? It may, perhaps, be faid ; * Tliere is a « manifcfl: difference beiv/een the condud of Herod, and * that of Jefi-is Chrilt. The former received divine < honours out of pride, and contrary to the v.'ill of God : < but the latter calls himfelf God, and receives adoration, < only becaufe the true God will have it fo/ — But v/hi^ere, and by whom, has God declared his will, that Ch.rifi: fhould bear his name, and receive his worfliip I If there be any fuch revelation, it mufi have been made, either by the prophets ; or by his Son ; cr by the apolilcs. If they fay, By his Son; the Jews will immediately afl<, W^'hether all the feducers in the world do not pretend co divine authority, for what they fay and do ? They all affirm, that the names they bear, the works they perform, and the honours they receive, are by the commarid of God ; yet they are eafily convidled of falfehood, and their wonderful works, if they perform any, are proved to be impoflure ; becaufe they ufurp the charadtcrs and glory of God. — If, by the apcjiles ; they are no lefs embarrafied. For they who rejedt Chrift, condemn his apoflles ; condemn them of blaf- phemy, for afcribing the glory of God to a crucified man. — If, therefore, fuch a revelation have been made, it was by fhc prophets. But if fo, Chrifl is the true God. For all thofe oracles which reprefcnt the Mefliah as God, fpeak of him as the true Gcd. Nothing can be more exprefs than that command which is given to " all the angels to worfliip him ;" nor is any thing more certain, than that it is the true God cf whom the words are fpoken. And as the prophets have fo exprefsly and repeatedly declared, that there is but one God, the Creator of heaven and earth ; it is evident that he of wlicm they fpeak muft be the true, the eternal God. That fublirae Being whom the prophets foretel, as Goiv/ing into the world ; as fending his mcflenger before iiim : as commanding his fervants to " fay to the cities, <» of Judah, behold your God!" is the Crta'.or of SECT. II. 49 CHAP. I. heaven and earth. If not, there mufl be livo gods, of whom they fj^/eak : but Mofes and the prophets unite in niTerting, and infift upon it, as a principle eficntial to that religion which they taught and efUblilhed, tha there is but one God. Hear how Ifiiah declares the Uiiity and pubHihes the n:imcs of God. * Thus faiih * ihe Lord the King of Ifrael, and his Redeemer, the * Lord of hosts ; I am the Firf^, and I am the Lali, * and befides me there is no God.' According to thefs important and fublime exprefiîons, He only is to be called God, wliofe names are, Jehovah, t};e Re- DEEMtR OF Israel, the Lord of kcsts, the First and the Last. — Again; * î am the Lord, * and there is nonk else ; there is sc God befides me * — That they may knov/, from the rii:ng of the fun and * from the wefl, that there is none blsides me : I am * the Lord and there is none else, 1 form the light, * and create darknefs ; I make peace, and create evil ; * I the Lord do all thefe things — There is no God * £LSE befide me; a juil God and a Saviour, there is * NONE pEsiDE M£ — I am God, and there is none * ELSE.' — See, in what a reiterated manner the prophet * afferts the important truth ! . Hear, with what vehe- mence of fpirit and force of language, he mi.intains the fupreme dignity of Jehovah's charader, in oppofiiion to all that are called god, who made net the; heavens and the earth, tl^.e liglit and the darkucfs ! Of this liie Jews cannot be ignorant. * On this principle, they * will fay, our fathers condemned your Mclluih, He * called himfelf God, and vv'c know there is but one * God, the Creator of heaven and ear:h. Your MefLah, * not being the Former of all things, could not be * God ; he was, therefore, guilty of blafphemy ard * v\^orthy of death.' How, then, fhall v/e vindicate the conduâ of Chiifr, if we fuppofe him to be a mere man, and yet allow that he called himfelf God? Shall we fay, that he has liothing of God but the na^\e? But if fo, any other E 5£CT. II. 50 CHAP. I. man nii^ht be Co called as well as he— Shall we afiert that he is a metaphorical God ; that h*^ is fo called in the fenfe in which kings bear the name ? But the contrary appears, by his receiving adoration. When we call a rjan who is exceedingly brave, King of the courageous ; we do not mean to al'cribe any royalty to him. Befides, when we attribute any thing to a perfon metaphorically, we do not ufe the name fimply, without any limitation or explanation. — Shall wc fay, then, that Chrilt is a fubordinatc God ? But the Scriptures, by excluding a plurality of gods, exclude alfo every fubordinate god : for the}' utterly rejed every being, as unworthy to be called God, who is not the Creator of all things. — When the Supreme Lawgiver fays, " Thou fhalt have *' no other gods before me ;" does he mean to exclude a//perfons and a/7 things that are not God, or onlyfomeT If fome only, then the Ifraelites were allowed to have other gods before him; provided they were but of the right fort. But if «//, ail ent^relyj then the Jev/s did right in accufing Chrifl; of blafphemy, vv'hen he propofed himfelf, or was preached to them as a fubordinate god. I may, perhaps, be told, * When the Supreme Law- * giver faid, '•' Thou (liait have no other gods before me;'* * he meant to exclude the jfilfe gods of the heathen.' But whatever gods he intended, they are excluded by a general proportion ; which utterly forbids all fuch objecls of worfhip as are not the true God. The Law- giver docs not abhor the idols of the Heathen, becaufe they are the idols of the Heathen; but becaufe they are not the TRUE God, and yet are worfnippcd, Suppofe it were not wood, or ftone, but a man, or an angel ; fo foon as you adore him, he becomes a Heathen idol : otherwlfe, one that worfhips an angel could not be convicted of idolatr3-, by the firft command. It is, then, a general prohibition, and abfolutely forbids the worfhip of any one befides the Supreme Being ; confequently, it mufl entirely exclude all fubordinate gods. — Nor can the meaning be, to exclude a plurality oi fupreme gods. SECT. II. 51 CKAl'. 1. For if fo, of all the Heathen deities, the wcrfhip of none but their Jupiter would be condemned, by tl)is command. Befides, why fliould it condemn a cnum that never did, and, according to all probability, never will exift ? for none ever yet worfnip'^cd iii)j Jupretne gods. Were not the Jews in tJie right, then, vhcn thev complained that Jefus, being a niere man, made himlclf God ? Or, can we blame their conduvfr, unlefs wc confider Chrid as of the fame cfTence with Him who created the univerfe ? They affixed the idea of the Supreme Being to the name G on ; having been taught, by the prop>hets, that there is but cue God, and that ;!il other deiiies Ihall perifîi from the earth. So that if iher were under a miiUke, in tills refpecc, they were led into it by their prophets ; but if not, they were obligee, on the principles of our opponents, to condemn Jefus for ufurping the names and honours of God. — For it ihould be obferved, that names do not naturally exprefs thefe ideas rather than thofe ; their figniiication being fixed, either by God himfelf, fi^caking in the Scripuies ^ or by general confent and cufiiom. We are not, there- fore, to confider the biters v/hich compjfe the name God, in Englilh ; 0f*ç,inGreck; jKHGVAH,inHebrc\v ; as having any thing facred, or peculiarly fignilicant, in them ; bat v/c mufh examine what icL'as are afHxed to thefe names. Now thefe ideas arc not fuch as any particular perfon may pleafe to f.x upon them; but thofe which have been, and are annexed to them, by the unerring Spirit, in the Bible ; and by the comnioa confent of mankind. — Were a Count of an empire, for inftance, to aflame the title of Emperor; he would, no doubt, difpleafe the princes ; and it would be but a poor apology to fay, * That by the exalted title, he meant * no more than a fovereign prince in his ov.n country.* He would foon be informed, that the common confent of men, not his particular fancy, fettles the lignification of the te^-m. In like manner, it would be to no purpofe £ 2 ^.TCT, II. 5£ CHAP. !• for Chridians to /hy ; Though Jefas a/Tumed the nan-.e God ; yet lie did not apply it to himfelf in that fenfe in vhich it is coninrionly ufed : for the que(tion is not. What he underf^ood by it ; but, What men ou^ht to underfland by it, when it is given to him. If, therefore, we v.'ould know what Jefus meant, by Calling himfelf God; or what his difciplcs intended, by giving him that name ; we mult inquire what was the common acceptation of the term, in the language of men in genera), or in thqt of the Jews, or of the prophets, or of God hin-jfcif. If the name agree to Chrilt, as \ mere mar, Jet our adverfarics inform us which of thefe they follow. It is not agreeable to the manner of fpeaking amorg men /'« general ; for it never was their cufiom to call a mere man by the nam.e God. Much kfs .'S it conformable to the current language of &i had a (ignincation which had not been heard of till that time ; a figniiicaiion which fjlly acquitted a man who, v/ithout it, would have been convicted of biafj hemy. Much lefs are the modern Jews to be ccnfured for fpeaicing, as their forefathers tauoht them. Lut let us confider the various ways, in which the members of the ancient fynagogue were instructed by their j?rophets, iti this refpecl. The prophets frequently reminded them of thisprecept; ** Thou (halt have no other gods before me ;" without ever fubjoining the leafi: c^ualiiication, or redriclion, by which they might learn, that this command was not general and obligatory in all ages and places. Were the Jews, then, obliged to .believe, without pny manner of notice, that a command fo inviolable till th?n, had loft its force in the tim.e of Jef.is Chriil ? They conftantly oppofe that God who ir.ede all things, to every created god. As they affert the unity , of God, with great frequency and great fclemnity ; fo they diftinguiih him by his charafter, *' He made th.e *' heavens and the earth." Nay, they declare that ** the gods who made not the heavens and the earth, ** fhall perifh from under the heavens.'' The Jews could not but confider this ancnion, as general; and as teaching them, that no one ought to be acknowledged as God, but him that created the world and is unchan^e- ,iLble. b::cT. II. 54 cKAp. ir. The prophets taught, that God cannot be reprefenud by any picture, or image ; becaufe there \i nothing in the world fit to reprefent him. " To whom,'* or to wh?.r, fays God, " will ye liken me ?'' By which the Jews were informed, that nothing which might be reprefented on canvafs, or in ftatuary, ought to be a-jknowlcdged as God. Confequently, they muft con- clude, that a mere man was very far from defervirg to be called God. The name Jehovah, with all other Divine titles and characlers v.hich our Maker afTumes in the Scripture, are names of djftincl'wn ; and were defîgned to exalt him far above all creatures. " I am Jehovah, that ij " my name. There is no God befides me. Ye fhall ** fwear by my name. Whofoever fweareth upon the " earth, ihall fwear by the God of truth." Now îhefç characters and claims Vv'ere defigned to diftinguiih God, cither from all his creatures, or only from fome of them. If the latter ^ in vain does He fay ; " There is no " Ggd befides me." Becaufe it might be anfwered. Though that be thy name, it does net dilHnguilTi thee from every creature : fcr there is, or there will be one, that fliall bear it with thee. If the former^ then whoever calls himfelf God, difowns the condition of a creature ; r.nd, confequently, if Jefus Chrid affumed that name, or any other exprefllve of the fame glory, the Jews could not but accufe him of blafphemy. The prophets abundantly affert the unity of God. Nor can we confider their extraordinary care, in this refpe^H:, as owing to any thing, but the danger there was of men falling into idolatry ; by acknowledging, as God, one that was not Jehovah. But were the days of the prophets the only time in which men were in any fuch. danger ? Were they not expofcd to the fame evil, when the Sanhedrim judged Jefus Chrift ? But why do I afk fuch queflions ? for, if we believe our adverfaries, the event has proved, that it was poifible for men, with the writings of the prophets in their hands, to become 3ECT. II. SS CHAP. ir. idolaters ; by placing a creature, honoured with the name of God, on the throne of the Deity. — The Jews, then, were obHged to be jealous for the glory of God, as the prophets had been in the times of their fathers. For they might eafily forcfee, that if a mere man were fuffered to call himfelf God, he would focn be put in i/je place of God ; and the event has veriiicd fuch an apprehenfion. As the prophets, therefore, had for fo many ages conflantly declared, that there is but ons objedl, to whom the name God belongs, in order to guard the people againil idolatry ; the fame reafon required the Jews to wiihiland a man, who dared to affiime the names and titles of Gcd. Jehovali, by the prophets, declares, " I will not give *' my glory to another, nor my praife to graven images." The Jews, therefore, had reafon to conclude, that He had not given his glory to Jefus Chrift. For either this propofition is general; and fo fignifies, that God never gives his glory to any one : or it is particular, and imports, that at fome times, and on certain occafions, he does give his glory to anotiier. If the latter^ the affertion is tiifiing and the reafoning vain. For the meaning mult be, God gives not his glory to another, on fome occafions, though he does it on olhers, There<^ fore, he will not give his praife to graven images. If the formery as it muft undoubtedly be, the Jews were obliged to conclude, that God had not given his glory to Jefus Chriit ; and confequently, he could not, without manifefl impiety, eitlier inved himfelf with the titles of God, or pretend to Divine honours. The prophets have fo great a refpe(ft for the names of God, that; they carefully avoid taking any metaphors from them ; which is a very remarkable difference between human and Divine language. The former^ being that of men who do not fufîiciently reverence the Deity, abounds with metaphors taken from God. Almod every thing is reprefented, by one or another, as divine, adorable, infinite, Incenfe and facriftce, SECT. II. 56 CHAP. II. dedication and devotion, with many otiur expreillons that are t^ken from the wonliip of God, co(l us nothing, and ave freq lently ufed. But tliey are banilhed from the language of the Holy Spirit ; who, fpeaking of God as God, and of a creature as a creature, avoids thofe metaphors which would feem to infringe on the rights, or the honours, of the Great Supreme ; or as might leem to elevate the creature above a {late of dependence. ^Vh^n the Holy Spirit perfonifies death, he docs not call him the god, but tlie " king of terrors." And though the pfilmiil:, fpeaking of the rulers of this world, fays, " Ye are gods ;" yet he immediately adds, *' but ** ye fliall die like men." The figurative application, therefore, of the adorable name, in this paflage, cannot pofiibly injure the glory of God ; becaufe it is given to princes for no other reafon, but to form an antithefis to humble them. *' Ye are gods — but ye fliall die Hke *' men." — If, then, the reverence which the writers of the Old Tedament had for the proper rames of God, be fo great ; and if the fame reverential regard be found in the penmen of the New Teflament ; who, Tvhen fpeaking of a creature, do not fetch their metaphors from the attributes of God, as the Heathen authore did, and as is common at this day; ought we to cenfure ihe Jews of an cxcelTive tendernefs, who could not fuffer the name God to be given to a mere man, and «iven to him in fuch a fenfe as requires us to worfhip liim ? For, either the name God, expreiTes îhe glory of the Creaior^ or th'at of the crealurey or one that is ccmmon to both. It cannot be a glory common to both; for if it were, the prophets could not have fo often declared, that there is but cneGoà: befidcs, every one of us might call hlmfelf by the adorable name, without any fcruple. Nor can it be the glory of the creature; for ho man ever could fuppofe it. It mull, therefore, be the glory of the Creator; a glory peculiar to him. And if fo, the Jews could not but acciife SECT. II. S7 CHAP, n, Jefas of blafphemy ; who, though a mere man, a/Tumed a name which exprefTcs the Creator's glory. Once more : The prophets have two principal ends in view, when they proclaim the chara(flers, perfections, and honours of the Supreme Being. The one is, to glorify God, by exalting him far above all creatures ; the other, to fave vmnh'tndy by preferring them from idolatry, and by infirading them in the knowledge and worfhip of the true God. But thefe high deligns are oppofed, are deftroyed, as to multitudes, if the Jews permit à mere man to alTume the names of God. For, as names are given to perfons and things, with a defign to make them known, and to diftinguifh one from another; if a mere man take upon him the names of God, he will, in fanie degree at lead:, be confounded with him : and thus the defign of the prophets îo glorify Gody by exalting him far above all other beings, is oppofed. For as God glorifies hinitfclf, by laying a peculiar claim to fuch charadlers as do not, as cannot, agree to a mere creature ; fo the creature impicufly dilhonours God, by afluming thofe naines which are appropriated to him. — The other great end is no lefs oppofed, by an ufurpation of God's names. For when Jefus calls himfelf God, he muft apply the name, either witbi or ivhhout an idea. If the latter^ he ads abfurdly. li û\q fonmry it mud be either the fame which men in cnmmon ailix to it ; or a particular one of his own. If the fame which manhlnd in general annex to the term, it mull be that of the Supreme Being ; and. confequently, he leads men directly into idolatry. If it be a particular one of his own, he lays a fnare for immortal fouls ; for he takes a diredl flep to lead men into error, from error to idolatry, and from idolatry to damnation. He renders language a commerce of deceit and mifchief; whereas, by its natural appointment, it ought ever to be an intercourfe of truth and benefit?. Befides, the fignification of the name, God, not depending on the caprice of any particular perfon ; \yi.'i SECT. II, 58 CHAP. II. latent meaning cannot acquit him from a charge of blafphemy. * Jefus Chrift, it will be objeded, did not call * himfelf God, but the Son of God.' Suppofing he did not afTume the name God, in the courfe of his perfonal minidry ; fuppofing the Sanhedrim could have produced no evidence of any thing like it, as the ground of that fentence which they pronounced upon him ; yet . it is beyond a doubt, that his difciples gave him both the names and the praifes which arc peculiar to God. When, therefore, the Jews are informed, that the evangelifts and apollles wrote the New Teftament by his authority and under his peculiar diredion ; they cannot, fo long as they underRand their own language and read their own prophets, but confider the gofpel as impious, and i'vo. obliged to approve the fentence which th!;ir fathers pafTed upon him. For they cannot doubt, but their Sanhedrim had authority to judge him ; that they had good reafon to accufe him of blafphemy,becauf£ the writings of his difciples (by which only they are able to judge of his own fentiments and claims) invefl. him v/lih the characters and honours of the true God; and, that they could not but pronounce a blafphemer worthy of death, without deferting their duty and betraying their truft. * But they who compcfed the Sanhedrim that * condemned Jefus Chrift, aded on the principles of * envy, malice, and rage.' — Admitting they did, yet the Jews in after-times will reply ; ' It is not for r.s to * fearcb ihe hearts of our fore fathers : our bufinefs is, * to inquire into the jujlice of their fentence. It was * never heard that wife and impartial men, laid more * flrefs on furmifes conceived, of the ill difpofition of a * judge on the bench, than on the characters of judice, < or injuflice, found in the fentence he pafled. We * cannot penetrate the hearts of men ; hut we are * taught, by our law, how to diftinguifii blafJDhcmers. *.Por its firfl command is, " Thou flialt luve no ctlisr SECT. II. 5^ CHAP. III. *' gods before me." By this we are obliged to reje(n: * your Mefliah, for affuming the titks and honours of « God ; though, by your own confellion, he is not the * God of Ifraei.' CHAPTER III. The prhicipp.l Titles and Charailers -which, in the writings of the I'rophets, form the idea of the true God, are applied to Jtsus CinusT. 1 HAT Jefus Chrifl affumed the name God, in a proper fenfe, appears from his aportles having afcribcd to hhii thofe perfeclions, Avhich form the idea fignifled hy the moft venerable name. For, as before cbferved, there is no ditfcrence, in this reipe<5l, between U'hat he fays of himftlf, and what his difciples fay of him ; they fpeaking by his auihoiliy and his infpiiation. To the name, God, the prophets affixed the idea of an almighty Being, v/ho created the heavens and the earth. The work of creation is frequently mentioned by them, as the grand chara(51cri(Hc of the true God. Of this none can doubt, — The formation of the univerfe is alfo exprefsly and repeatedly afcribed to Jefus Chrifh *• All things v/ere made by him, and without hira " was not any thing made that was made. By him ** were all things created that are in heaver, and that " are in earth, vifibic and invifible — all things v^-ere ** created by him and for him. He laid the foundation *' of the earth, and the heavens are the v/orks of his *' hands." — That thefe things are fpoken of Chrifl, is evident; nor can the words admit of a different fenfe, without manifell violence, as I fliall fnew in a following part of this Treatife. Here I fiiall only obferve, that sîîCT. ir. 60 CHAP. m. the apofllcs, having fo frequently attributed the creation of all things to Jefus Chiilt ; and that work being fo often mentioned, by the ancient prophets, as the effed of omnipotent agency, and tlie moft obvious characler of the true God, efpecially v./hen contending with idolaters ; the writers of the New Tefhîment mu(t have afled a molt unaccountable part, and, they being only the amanuenfes of Chri(t himfelf, he mud have been guilty of impious arrogance, if he be a mere creature. The prophets reprefent Gcd, as an omnifcknt Being, Perfedl knowledge is alfo afcribed to Jefus Chrilh ** Lord, thou knoweft all things, thou knoweft that I <* love thee,'^ faid Peter to his Divine Mafter. — Should it be oljecled, * It is no where faid, that Chi ill approved * of the honour which is here done him, by his apoftle:* .Î ar.fwer, That is little to the purpofe. For the exprsfiions muft be either falfe, or true. Jf true, Jefus muil approve of them, for he is truth itfelf ; and they prove the point fcr which we plead. If they be fal/e, they are pregnant with blafphemy : and, if fo, the honour of God and the falvation of Peter made it abfolutely receflary, that he {hould have been fharply reproved for them. What, fhall Chrid fay to that very apoftle, *• Get thee behind m,e, fatan!" when he only endeavoured to dilTuade him from going up to Jerufalem, there to fuffer; and fi;a!l he meet with no rebuke from the humble, holy Jefus, when he robs God of his glory and gives it to another, by afcribing a divine perfeérion to a mere man ! Peter's fault, for v.'hich Jefus rebuked •him, arofe from his indifcreet zeal for the honour and fafety of his Mailer. Ile did not perceive, wliilc he was endeavour ing to prevent the death of his Lord, that he was aticmptii.g to counterafl the counfels of heaven; and to hinder an event, by which the glory of Gcd is more highly exaktd, than by any other in the whole adminiftration of Providence. — There is rothiiig fo precious as the glory of Gcd, it being the uhin:ate erj of all things: ccnfequcntly, fo far as any SECT. II. 6i CHAP. ilL in thing is contrary to it, it m\.\([ be deleiliible. But, the pafTage before us, the apoftle not only fpeakg tinadvifedlyi in regard to the glory of God ; but, if his afl'ertion be faife, he is guilty of blafpbemy. For he not only afcribes to Jefus the knowledge oi a!l things in general j but alfo that of the human hearty in particular. " Lord, thou knoweft all things, thou knowelt thst " I LOVE THEE." This is 2l dilHnguilliing chara(fter of Jehovah's glory, and a perfection peculiar to the true God. For thus it is written ; " The heart is deceitful *' above all things, and defperately wicked; who can *' know it? I THE Lord fearch the heart, I try the ** reins.'* Here the God of Ifrael attributes to himfelf the knowledge of the heart, as his own peculiar glory. To place this momentous truth in a flill Uronger light, the words of Solomon, in his admirable praj'er at the dedication of the temple, may be confidered. ** Thou, even Thou only, knoweft the hearts of all ** the children of men." Hence it is evident, that the title, " Searcher of hearts," is included in that idea, which the prophets give of the eternal God; and that it cannot belong to a mere creature, nor be given to hini without blafphemy. Yet it is equally clear, that Jefus takes the Divine title to himfelf, and that in the moll: folemn and remarkable manner. " All the churches *' fhall know that I am HE which fcarcheth the reins ** and hearts ; and I v/ill give unto every one of you ** according to your w^orks." It follows, therefore, that Jefus not only afTumes the name, God ; but alfo afierts his intereil in thofe attributes which form, in the writings of the prophets, the moft proper and fublime idea of the Great Supreme. Confequcntly, if Jefus Chrilt be not the God of Ifrael, the Jews are obliged to rejedl his tediniony as falfe, and his high prétendons as bhtfphemous. It will be faid, * Chrid does not appropriate this title * to himfelf in the fame finf^ in which the God of Ifrael * claims it, in the ancient prophets. When God iô faii F SECT. II. 62 CHAP. UU * to " knov/ the heart, and to try the rein?,'* the words * are to be underflood of fuch a knowledge as is peculiar * to him ; for he is not beholden to another for it. * Whereas when Jefus Chrift fays, ** I fcarch the reins *' and hearts ;" the words are to be undcrilood of a * dvri'oed knowledge. For he does not know the fecrets * of the heart immediately and of himfelf, but becaufe * God reveals them to hiin.' — But when a perfcn attri- butes to hinifeif an eminent quality, or an exalted chara«5ler, which is calculated to raife a fufiiicion in others, that he afTumes an honour which does not belong to him ; he is obliged to explain himfelf, by removing the ambiguicy of the terms ; ctherwife, his temper may be iuftly acculed of arrogance, and his concuél of robbery. 80, if a fubjecl (hould have a defire to be honoured ^vith the- title of niaje/ly, under a pretence of his pofTeiling fome confiderable office in the ftate ; and if he v/ere adu?.lly ^D honoured, he would be guilty of a capital crime, againft the dignity of him v/hofe glory he ufurped. And though, in his ov/n defence, he fliould fay, That he did not defire, nor accept the title in the fame fenfc, ror affix to it that exalted idea, which it bears when applied to his lawful fovereign, and which is commonly annexed to it by other men ; and that he meant no more •by it than a fubordinate and dependent majefly ; he v/ould foon be informed, that his excufes are mean and liis reafons defplicable. He would quickly be told, that the word majejly^ being, by general cullom and the pleafare of ruling powers, appropriated to exprefs the fovereign dignity of kings ; by which they are not only difiinguinned from all their fubjeii, one of which is found in Homer, where it does * not fignify a real and proper equality with God.* — To ■whicii i reply ; It is very unbecoming to produce ex- amples of this kind, from Homer, did he afFord evcr fo many. For it is notorious» that the writings of the Heathens, and e{peci?ily thofe of the poets, abour^d suer. II. 72 CHAP. IV. with impiety and blafphemies. This confideration en- hances the value of the Scriptures. For it is their infeparable eharacaks of himffclf, or direds others to fpeak of him, as of the true God ; would be acknowledged and worfliip- ped as fuch. But ChrKl fpeaks, and would be fpokcn of by us, as the true God. This appears from his taking the names, and afciibing to himfelf the works of God. If not, why does he afTume fuch names, why does he declare that he performed fuch works, as arc proper to God, if he would not have us fpeak of him as God ? What, (liall he fpeak of hinifeif as God ; fliall he afTert, that he created all things and perfoi med the works of God ; and, afier all, be unwilling that ttr fliould fpeak of him, as God ? Abfurd, to imagine ; impoflible, to prove. — He who requires we fhould do that for him, which we cannot lawfully do for any but the true God, expeds to be worfliipped as fuch. Bat Chrill requires us to do that for him, which we ought Dot to do for any but God. This appears from hence. We are bound to love God above all things : confe- quently, an affe-ftion fo ardent> and a duty fo high, are due to none but God. We ought, however, to love Jefas above all things ; to love him more than our lives, which, of all things in the world, are the deareft to us. He requires that we fliould fuffer martyrdom for his fake ; and, by fo doing, enjoins a duty which we do not, which we cannot owe, to any but God. None of the prophets, nor any of the apoiHes, ever faid; *♦ He that forfaketh not wife and children, and houfes ** and lands, yea, and his own hfe, for my fake, is not ^ worthy of me." * But Chriil declares, that he a6ls in the name of *" his Father, and that the Father is greater than he ; * which is fufficient to forbid us addreffing him vath *yîv/>r(?/K^ worftiip.' — To this 1 anfwer; Suppofe a minifter of (late fliould give orders, under his own feal, for- coining money with his imag^ upon it ; at the flimc time afiumin^ the names and titles of his lawful fovsreign; SECT. II. So GHAP. V. would his condufl be juftlfied by declaring once, or twice, * My fovereign is greater than I, and I a^ft in * his name ?' Should we not, in fuch a cafe, have leafon to fay, He denies by his aâions, what he confefles in words, and contradids himfelf ? — The application is eafy. For as there is a certain idea of royalty, which fubjefls ought never to apply to any befides their king ; as there are names snd titles fo appropriated to the perfon of a fovereign, that they cannot be given to any other without offence ; and as there are particular honours due to a crowned head, which cannot, on any pretence whatever, be paid to others, without being guilty of high-treafon ; becaufe the lignification of words and aflions is not fixed by the caprice or authority of any particular perfon, but by general confent and cuflom : fo, by a mod ancient, facred, and inviolable ufe, eilablifhed by the prophets, eftabliflied by the eternal Sovereign himfelf, there are feme ideas fo appropriated to God, that they cannot poff.bly belong to any other ; there are feme titles fo peculiar to him, that it is high- treafon, in a divine fenfe, to give them to any other; and there are certain honours fo peculiarly due to him, that they cannot be given to another, without " denying ** the God that is above," and incurring the complicated guilt of blafphcmy and idolatry. Such an honour is veligious worfhip. For, if there be any difpofitions of neart, if any language of the tongue, if any actions in life, by which it is pofTible for us to exprefs a fuitable difliniftion between God and every mere creature, they mufl be thofe of a devotional kind. And as the moft fjncere, the mofl fervent, the moft fublime adoration v/e can pay to Jehovah, neither expreffes, nor imj)lies any more, than a dutiful defire and endeavour to treat GoD, AS God; fo the leafl degree of that worfhip, •when given to a mere creature, is an alienation of the ïàghts of Deity, and a placing that creature on the ^ooe of the Moft High. SECT. lî. 8l CHAP. V. * Suhordinate worfliip is diflinguifhed from that which * is fupremc. The latter belongs to God only, as the * fource of being and i)erfe<5lion ; while the former may * be given to Chrift, though a dependent being ; he * having received, from the Great Sovereign, peculiar * honours and authority.' — But there is abundant reafon to conclude, that tliis fuhordina'e worffiip was not known to the divine Legiflator, nor to the prophets, nor to the apoftles, nor to angels, nor to Jefus Chrid himfelf ; of all which in their order. That the Divine Legiflator knew nothing of this kind of worfhip, appears from hence : He forbids all '•juorjhip^ in general, which does not belong to the true God j and that in a moral precept, the obligation of which is perpetual. This he would not have done, had fubordinate worfliip been lawful ; left, by ambiguous expreflions, he ihould have led mankind into error. Nor would he have forbidden us, without exception, to worfliip any befides God ; but only to worfliip any other with fupreuie worfliip. If the Divine Lawgiver intended that the promifed Mefliah, though a more creature, ftiould be adored when he appeared ; why did he, in fach general terms, utterly forbid all manner of worfliip that is not given to the God of Ifrael ? — Bifides, he evidently deflgned to difcourage and condemn the Gentile idolatry. But that idolatry principally confided, in wor(hipping various divinities with fubordinaie worfliip : for the ancient Heathens, no Isfs than the Jews, acknov/ledged but one flip re me Being. * The law forbids, it will be faid, fuch fubordinate * worfliip, as terminates on idols; not that which has * Chrifl. for its objecl.' — But when the law prohibits that kind of worfliip, it does it in general teims ; in fuch terms as foibid all forts of fubordinate worfliip, without any exception. -Ouradverfaries, perhaps, may fay, * There * being idols and thefc idols becoming the objeds of wor- * fliip, render that worfliip idolatrous.' But they fliould. rather fay, There is an objecb woifliippcd : this v/orfliip, SECT. II. 82 CHAP. V, being given to an objedl which does not deferve it, renders the objeâ:, though innocent in itfelf, an idol. The God of Ifrael exprefling himfelf in a generp.l way, and forbidding to worfhip any thing in heaven or on earth, after the manner of the Heathen ; it is evident, that fo foon as we addrefs fubordinate worfnip to any thing in heaven or earth, vv'e make an idol of it. — It is worthy to be remarked, that the law docs not only fay, ** Thou flialt have no other gods ;" but ** thou flialt *' have no other gods before me ;" which Teems prin- cipally to forbid fubordinate worfliip. The prophets were ignorant of fubordinate v/orfhip. They had no inflance of it before thtir eyes, but wh:it tljey detected as idolatrous. They never heard, they never fpeak, of any fuch thing as lawful ; or as having any exigence among the pure worfhippers of Jehovah. Nay, they laugh at, they defpifc all fubordinate gods ; becaufe they cannot conceive how any man can worfhip an objed that *' created not the heavens," and caufeth not •' the rain to defcend upon the earth :" which they would not have done, had they known that there was, or ever would be, a fubordinate God, to v.hom adoration fîiould be paid. — ' But the prophets, 1 fuall < be told, chaige the people with idolatry, becaufq < they addrtfTed fupvcme worfliip to gods wlio crcr.ted * not the heavens and the earth.' Quite a miflake : for the Heathens did not ^^y fupreme worPnip to their fubordinate divinities ; becaufç they did not look upou them as the fource of being and the original of all good ; Jupiter being the only god, whom they acknov.'lcdged under thofe exalted charaflers. Nor were tlie opoj'.ks acquainted with fubordinate worfhip, as appears from the following confiderations. They confidered ail worfhip, even that which was only external, and could net be efkemed as addrefTed to a fupreme obje^ft, when given to a creature, as doing iniinite prejudice to the glory of the Cieator. — When Cornelius fdl down at Peter's feet, he did not lock upon 6ECT. île uj CHAP. Vi him as the Suprc:ne Eiin^. Though he woiHiipped him, it was not, it couhl not be, as the Original of all good, and the Ruler ct' all worlds. He knew very well that Peter was but a man ; for thj angel had told him fo, when he commmdcd him to fend for that apodle from Joppa. This worfliip, therefore, could be no more than JuborJimiâf and even t'Mt in a very low^ degree. The devout Centurion could not pofiîbîy think of wor {hipping a man, called Si-iuTTy furnamcd Peter, who had lodged at the houfe of another Simori a tanner, with the fame adoration which he paid to God. And yet, as worHiip, even exlemal woiHiip, was an a(5l determined by cuilom to exprefs that honour which is due to none but the Great Supreme ; Peter did not fo confider the good intention of Cornelius, as to receive it. No ; with an holy emotion he faid to his admiring and revering friend ; *' Stand up ! I myfelf aîfo am a man.*' — Hence it follows, that it is not lawful to wordiip any but the true God. For Peter, from a regard to the glory of God, refufes and rejecls with abhorrence, that worfaip which Cornelius was difpofed to give him ; by faying, *' I am a man ;" I am not God. Confequently, fubordinate worlhip is contrary to the glorj' of God. — Hence alfo it is manifelè, that whoever is a mere man by nature, ought neither to require, nor to receive rehgious wormip, whether fuprcme or fubordinate. More fully to prove and illuflrate this conciufion, 1 would afiv ; What is it that hinders Peter, on thiti occaGon, from accepting v/orfliip ? It mufl be, either the refpe^fl which he has for God, or that which he has fol^ Jefus ChrilT:. If the forme); he mud confïder what is zwWQàfurhjrdînate worfnip, when addrefT^d to a creature, as injurious to the glory of God : and if fo, not only Peter, but Jefus Chrill himfelf, if he be a mere creature, is bound to refufe it. If the latter^ he fhculd not have {•^id, as the reafon of his rejedingir, " I alfo am a man:" becaufe Chrii}, of whofe honour he is fo jealous, is alfo a man, and, by nature, no more than a man. Bit the jg£CT. îï. 8^4 CHAP. V» anoflle here tells the Centurion what he /x, only to let him knov/ what is due to him. He calls himfelf ^ m^/7, to inform him, that if any mere man fliould claim, or accept, this kind of worfliip, he would greatly diflionour God. — And though the charaOer of Peter, as an ambafTidor of God, deferved extraordinary honours ; though it was under this notion that Cornelius confidered Jjin-j, and under this idea that he attem.pted to worfliip him ; yet he rejected it with deteftation, as an impious infringement on the rights of Jehotah, without affigning any rcafon but this, " I alfo am a man." It is evident, therefore, and by the condud of Peter, it is eftablifhed as a general principle ; That no man, though a mefTenger of God ; that no mere man, what- ever title he may bear, ought to be honoured with religious worfhip. — In a word. If the regard v;hich Peter has for Jefus Chrifl, hinder him from fharing in that worfhip v.hich belongs to the great Redeemer ; tlie refped which Jefus ought to have for the Supreme Being, (hould prevent him from partaking in the honours cf religion with the true God. Nor did the angels know of any fubordinate worfhip, when John had his prophetic vifions in the ifle of Patmos. If they had been acquainted v;ith it, at leafl:, if they had confidered it as lawful ; that holy intelligence, who converfed with the beloved difciple and fhewed him fo many wonderful objeds, would either not have refufed thofe honours which the apoftle was, once and agaii>, defirous of giving to him ; or have rejected them on different principles. For none can fuppofe that the amazed, delighted, and revering apoftle, miftook the angel for the Great Supreme. He would have worfhij>- ped his celeflial informant, becaufe he was the angel of God ; not becaufe he took the fervant for the eternal Sovereign. The angel, however, not krowing of any religious worfhip which might be addrefTcd to a mere creature, fays j *' See thou do it cot ! — WorOiip God.'* SECT. II. S$ CHAP. V. AfTerting, in the cleared manner, that all r/^^rfliip mud be paid to God, and to him only. Oncemore: jEsusCHRisThimfelf wasnot acqui^intcd with this didindion, nor knew any thing of fubordinate worfliip, when he was tempted of the devil. Satan, when he tempted our Lord to worfliip him, did not pretend to be the true God ; confcquentlv, he did not folicit Jefus to worfliip him, as fuch. Foi he plainly intimated, that there was one fuperior to him ; one from whom he had received the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them. The devil, then, defired to be honoured v;ith fubordinate v/orfliip. But Chrift rcjedls wiih abhorrence his blafphemous attempt, and ftews the iniquity of it, by adducing that precept out of the law ; *' Thou Hialt worfliip the Lord thy God, and Him *' ONLY fiialt thou ferve." It follows, therefore, that this command forbids us to v/orfliip any one befides the God of Ifiael, either with a fupreme, or a fubordinate worfliip : or, rather, that this didinction has no founda- tion in Scripture; but is calculated to difguifc blaf| hemv, and vindicate idolatry. H SECT. 11. 86 CHAP. VI- CHJPTER VL The cliarac^ers of Jciiovyva's glory in tlic ancient Oracle», applied to JEsus CiiKis r ; and ths argument ariHng frona that application illudrated. 1. HE apoflles and evangelhls, when aflerting the dignity of their Divine MaRer, made no fcruple or itppiying to him thofe oracks of the Old Tedament, •which exprefs the charaders of God's eflsntial glory. Of this various indanees have been ah-eady produced, which we fhall examine more particularly hereafter : and our adverfaries themfelves do not deny it, fince they pretend that thofe oracles are applied to Chrift, by way of alluiion, or accommodation. — But it is very furprifing and ablolutely unaccountable, that the apoftlcs fhould make fuch applications to him, if he be not the true God. For common fcnfe, one would have thought, v/as fullicient to inform then», that fuch things as v/ere fpolcen only of the Creator, ought not to be applied to ;i mere creature. For it was never known that fuch applications were made without being cenfured, by thofe that feared God, of impiety and blafphemy. The ancient Heathens, indeed, were not very fcrupulous ir\ this refpeét : for it was common with them to debafe God and to exalt creatures, by attributing to them the jdorics of the D jity ; and in this the prodigious excefs of their fuperftition principally confided. Their exam- ple, however, ought to have no weight with us ; as it was, we may aff-ire ourfelves, deteded by the apodles. For they had been indruâed in the fchool of the prophets ; they, therefore, were incapable of falling into fuch a miltake. The care of the prophets, in that refpefl, is very remarkable. Always jealous for the glory of God, they are perpetually cautious that the Creator fhould not be confounded with any of his SECT. II. ^J CHAP. VI. creatures. And being thus confhmtly upon their guard, they never apply the charadcriilics of Jehovah's glory to any mere creature. It cannot, 1 think, be fuppofcd, that thofe exalted and defcriptive charaâers, which the apollles give of Jefus Chrilf, are more facred, or more peculicr to him, than thofe which the projihets gave of the God of Ifrael. As, therefore, wc fhould not dare to a])ply tf e peculiar chaia(^lcrs of Chrilt, to any of his ap6rtlcs ; fo a fin.ilar reafon ought to hinder us, ought to have hindered all, from applying the diflinguilhing charatrf rs of [chovsli to jcfus Chrii'J, if he be not the true God. — A man would be jullly charged v/ith blafphemy, were he to apply to Peter, for inllance, the following names, characters, and woi ks o^ Jefus Chrift. Were he to c?!i him, " The Lamb of God, which taketh away the fin ** of the world — Our king, prophet, and m\d\ ; the *' high-prieft of our pi ofejfion, and a prieif for ever after ** the order of Melchifedeck — The Prince of peace — *' Immanuel — The Word — The Alpha and Omc^^n, «* the Firlt and the Lalt— The Lion of the tribe "of *' Judah — .The Saviour and Redeemer — The Son of ** God, his own Son, and his only begotten Son" — Were he to proceed andaflert. That Peter " redeemed *' the church with his own blood — That he bare our «* fins in his own body on the tree — That we have «' redemption through his blood, and are reconciled to *' God by his death — That there is no name but that of *' Peter, by which we mult be faved — That Peter is *' made unto us of God, wifdom and righteoufnefs, ** fandification and redemption — That Peter dwellctii ♦' in our hearts by faith — And, that there is no condem- *' nation to them that are in Peter" — Were anv one thus to fpeak of that great apofUe, what v.'ould tl!<: Chriftian world fay of him ? They would certainly call him, either a madman, or a blaiphemer. — Nor would their indignation againrt: his conduél be much abated, were they to hear him once and agaia acknov/iedg* ; H 2 SECT. !!• SS CHAP. VI- * That Jefiis Chri(l is greater than Peter.* For they would bcldJy tell him, that, by fuch a declaration, he only contradided himfelf, and tacitly confefTed his blalphemy. — Nor would it avail fuch an one to fay, * That, the application he makes of the charadcrs and * aitiibutes, the grace and works, of Jefus Chrill: to * Peter, is only by way of aUu/ion and occcmmodalion.' For it would quickly be replied ; Such allufions and îLccommodations are impious ; are abfolutely unwarrant- ab'C ; are pregnant with blaf)hemy. If, then, an application of the principal charaders, attributes, and works of our Lord to Peter, would be confidered and treated by Chriftians, as abominable biafphemy; it muit be a much higher degree of that malignant crime, to apply the names and titles, the attributes and wciks of the Suprem.e Being, to Jefus Chrill, if he be not a Divine Perfon. Nor is it any wonder that the Jews fliould fo confider it. For if the difproportion between Jefus and Peter be great, that which is between Chrift and God is inconceivably greater, according to the principles of our opponents ; û\^ former being iînite, the latter unbounded. Confe- q-iently, the blafphemy, in one cafe, is infinitely, greater tiiuii tliHt in the other. The impiety of ajjplying the chara6iers of Chrifl to Peter, will appear in a illU ftronger light, if, in the cafe fuppofcd, he who makes the application be con- iidered as knowing, that this quedion, Is Peter equal to Jdlis Chrill? had been debated on very important occafions ; and that he forefaw this error would become general in the world ; fo that, for many ages, Peter would bear the names and receive the honours of Jefus Chvifl. In fuch a cafe, he would be guilty of prodigious impiety indeed ; the confequences forefeen being fo injurioi's to the honour of Chrill, and fo fatal to the fouls of men. — This, it is obvious, is applicable to the apollles. For they were not ignorant that this queflion, \i Jefus Chrift equal v/ith God? had been debated^ SECT. II. 89 CHAP. VI. Nay, they well knew, that it was under a cliarge of pretented blalj hemy, for claiming an eq.iality wiih God, that the Jtus had perfecuted their Mafter and procured his death. And as they forefaw that falfe teachers would atife in future ages, and were able to defcribe their heretical doc^lrines ; they could not be ignorant, that vad multitudes profelTing ChrilHanity would fo apoflatize, as to put Jtfus Chrid, a mere creature, in the place of God. But if they knew and forefaw thefe tilings, ought not a zealous regard for the honour of God, and a tender concern for the fouls of men ; to have prevented their applying thofe oracles of the Old Tefiament, which exprefs the glory of Jehovah, in contradidinflion to that of his creatures, to Jcfas Chriîl ? — Who, then, on the principles of them we oppofe, can julHfy the conduv5l of the apoiUcs, in fo doing; Who can exculpate Jefus himfclf, by whofe command and infpiration they wiote ? Who can jultly condemn the conduét of the Sanhedrim, who arraigned him for blafphemy and caufcd him to end his life on the crofs, as an enemy to God and a deceiver of men ? Or who can blame the modern Jews for continuing in their infidelity. «3 90 SECTION III. If Jesus CH^^TST be not the true God, of the fame elTence with his Father, He and his apoilles haye led us into a compHcattd and pernicious error. CHAPTER L The principles -which we oppofe, obfcure, depreciate, deftrry, thofc exitlted ideas which Jesus gives us of his Father's Lcvc, and of his own Compafiion to firifiil men. i HE general reafcn of the leading propofition in this Seftion, is, The facred writers of the New Tefiament have not fpoken of Chrift, as of a mere creature ; though they were perfedly well informed, as to his true dignity and real charader. — But it is r.ecefiary that I (hould be more particular. In order, therefore, to prove and illulbate the propofition, I (hall endeavour to (hew,That the Socinian hypothefis obfcures, depreciates, and dedroys, thofe exalted ideas which Jefus Chrift gives us of his Father's love, and of his own compaffion to finful men — That it fo weakens the idea, \^hich is given us in the New Tefiament, pf the greatnefs of the myftery of godlinéfs, that one cannot help fufpeaing the apoftles of a defign to deceive us, by bombaftic expreflions — That it deprives Jefus Chrift of his honour, by making him poflefs, in a metaphorical fenfe, thofe titles which are given him in one that is proper— Ihat i; fuperfedes the neceility and vacates SECT. III. 91- CHAP. I. the death of Chiift — And, that it renders the language of Scripture oblciire and faife, abfurd and impious. 1 affirm, then, that the Socinian hypothefis obfciires, depreciates, and dcltroys thofe exaked ideas which Jefus gives us of his Father's love, and of his own compaflion to finfui men. It is nianifeft, that the grand benefit and the higheft evidence of the Father's love confill, in " giving his only begottkn Son," and in delivering him up to death for us. This gift, according to the Holy Ghofl, includes all others. For the apofUe fays; *' He that fpared not his own Son, *« — how (hail he not with him alfo freely give us all ** things?" — But if Jefus be by nature a mere man, cr a mere creature, the gift mufl: be of incomparably lels value than the flilvation of mankind : and, Co far from wondering that God has purchafed our falvation at fo {/ear a rate, we have reafon to be furprifed that he fliould procure it at Co fma/I ?.n expence. For however holy and excellent we may fcippofe Jefus to be, yet we mu(t allow, that an innumerable multitude of immortal beings, who love God with all their hcarrs and fervs him with all their powers, will be, in the day of their confummation, a more delightful obje£l in the eye of Omnifciencc than Jefus Chrifl, if he be a mere creature. The falvation of mankind, therefore, is more precious than the life of Chrill ; efpecially when it is confidered, that in lofing his life, he did not lofe his holinefs. — But the comparifon here, does not only lie between Chrift and the multitudes recieemed by him ; it extends alfo to the temporal life v/hich he loft for them, and that eternal l'ÛQ which they acquire by him The rcfult, then, of fuch a comparifon mull be, that the gift of Chrift, as a mere creature, is of much lefs value than the falvation of mankind. But, if Jefus Chrift be God-man, the intimate union of the humanity with his Divinity, may well be con- ceived to render his life and blocd infinitely precious. Of this we may affure ourfelres, by reafoning from the SECT. III. gi CHAP. I. lefs to the greater. A clod of the valleys, for in (lance, is of no worth or digu'iy : we do not care how many blows it receives-: it muxes no difference to us, whether it be preferved or deltroyed. But if it be united to a fpirit, the union will immediately confer a dignity upon it; fo as to give a proportional value to iis' ;îdions. or fufferings, on the behalf of anyone. Then fuppoie it exalt- ed to an union with the Divine efTence, and its intimate relation to God will render its vicarious obedience and fufferings of infinite worth — Or thus; If the fufferings of a perfon of quality be of more value than thofe of a peafant; if thofe of a king's fon, than thofe of a perfon of quality ; and if thofe of a king himfelf, than thofe of his own fon ; it follows, if we proceed in this gradation ad infitiitum^ and can find a perfon whofe dignity has no bounds, his fufferings will be of infinite value. — Such, according to our hypothefis, is Jesus Christ : for he is " God manifell in the fîefh.'* In all his fufferings, and in the depth of his humiliation, he polTefled the glories of the Godhead ; which enno- bled and dignified, beyond conception and beyond bounds, all that he did and all that he underwent for the falvation of finncrs. Such a Saviour, being the gift of the Divine Father to miferable men, mufl be a prefent of infinite value, and could proceed from nothing fhort of infinite lore. But, after all that can be faid for the contrary fentiment, a man is but a man ; and we fliould exalt the mercy of God at a childifh rate, were we to exclaim ; * Unfpeakable love! unbounded mercy ! which • gave the temporal life of a mere many for the eternal • falvation of mankind !' Nor would an exclamation of talis kind be much more pertinent, on the Arian hypothefis. There muft neceffarily, therefore, be ft more exalted meaning in thefe and fimilar exprefTions ; •* In this was manifeTted the love of God towards us, ** becaufe that God fent his only begotten Son ^ into the world, that we might live through him — 6ECT. III. ^93 CHAP. 1, ** God so loved the world, that he gave his only *' BEGOTTEN Sos" — Thcre muit, I fay, be a more exalted meaning in them, than that which is given to them by our opponents. When Paul fays, God " fparcd not his own Son j" the meaning is, that he gave us the life of his Son. Tlien, reaioning from the gre;i.tcr to the Icfs, he conchides, that God will give us all other bleilings: bccaufe the spodle confidcrs the life of Chrift, as more valuable and more precious than all things befides. But is there any proportion — let comn",on fenfe be the judge — is there any proportion between the temporal life of a man like curfelves, or of any mere creature, and the eternal felicity of s.11 the redeemed ? Or, caa any thing be more weak, inconclulive, and falfe, than the apoflie's reafoning, if the principles of our adverfaries be true ? They will fay, * God manifefts his love, by giving * us eternal life loUh his Son.* I reply. The affertioa includes two things ; everlafling life, and the \vay in •which it is granted ; that is, by the miniltry of Jefus Chrifl". The former^ being vouchfifed to guihy and miferable creatures, is undoubtedly an evidence of Divine love : the latter is but very weakly expreffive of any fuch thing. For it cannot, furely, be confider*d .as a great and rvonrîjrful effort of God's lore, to g|râ the temporal iifi of one rr.an, for the eternal life uî militons. Let me illiiilrate the point. In the deliverancf of the ancient Ifraelites from Egyptian bondage, two tisirgs may be rem;.ir4.cd. God redeems them from the fl*^very under which they groaned ; and, previous to theii* deliverance, he commands them to kill the pafchftl' lamb, and to fprinkle its blood on the door-poJfS cf their houfes. 'Fhe love of God to the tribea.of J-'CoL-, in granting iher.i deliverance, is greatly to be adr. for they were reduced to a fad extremity, and hitJ dwilrcd ta be reliçved. But we Ihould think ouiftlvcs SECT. III. 94 CHAP. I. much abufed, if any one endeavoured to perfuadc us; That the love of God to them appeared in a ivonderful manner ^ becaufe the blood of a lamb was the fign, to the deftroying angel, to fpare their firlt-born ; or, becaufe the facrifice of the pajovcr was a mean, in the hand of God, of working out their deHverdnce. Should any one exclaim ; * Behold, how God loved the Ifiaelites! * He fo loved them, that he put a lamby nay, many lambs * 10 death, that he might redeem them from flavery Î* v/ould you not think him delirious ? — But here 1 Ihall be reminded, ' That the life of Chrift, as a mere man, * is incomparably more precious than the life of & * facrifice under the law.' Suppofe it be ; yet, as the life of a lamb bears no proportion to the temporal deliverance of the Ifraelites; the temporal lifeof Jefus, as a mere man, or a mere creature, can bear no proportion to the eternal life of mankind. Nay, in the former of thefe two cafes tlicre \î, fome proportion, and a comparifon may be formed ; but none at all in the latter. For, as the life of a lamb is temporal, fo wae the life of an Ifi-aelite, which was redeemed by it ; and it mufl be allowed, that between temporal and, temporal there is fome proportion. But the life of Chrifi, as a mere creature, is temporal and of a limited worth ; whereas the life he purchafed for us, is eternal and of infinite value ; between which there is, there can be, no proportion. * The love of God q;pears, it will be faid, not in ' giving a man, fimj^ly confidercd ; but in giving one * that is his o'wn Son.* But is Jefus the Son of God in z proper, or in ^figurative fenfe ? If Û\ç former, it mufl be by eternal generation, which is that for which we plead. If the latter, I defire to be informed, Whether it be an extraordinary and an afloniQiing effort of Divine Jove, to give a man for our redemption, who is the Son of God only hy a metaphor? — Suppofe a fovereign vyerc obliged to deftroy a great number of his fubjeds, to aflcrt tlie rights of juftice and maintain the honour of his iawsi Sl!CT. ÎIÎ. 95 CHAP. I. except fome peiTon be found worthy of being admitted as their fubftitute, who, by laying down his life, ftiall dehver them from death. Sujjpofe, further, that this prince, being moved with companion, fliould engage to give the life of his own fon for their redemption ; you could not but conceive the higheft idea of his mercy and love, to his ofTending fubjeds. But if, afterwards, you Ihould be well informed, tJiat he did not give his oivn fen, and be alfo affurcd that he never bad^ properly fpeaking, a fon of his own ; but that all the myltery of this afloniPning love, which made fuch a noife in the world, confjflcd in this: He adopted one of his fubjedls; took him out of a (late of extreme indigence ; educated him like the fon of a prince ; determined to give him up to death, as a ranfom for his pcrifliing fubjeds ; and then, if it were pofiîble, to reward his luftcrings, by making him the heir of his crown ; — in fuch a cafe, it would be immediately faid. Though the condud of this prince is very extraordinary, and though his clemency is worthy of admiration, in pardoning attainted rebels, and in redeeming thofe who deferved to perifh ; yet it is a childilh hyperbole to exclaim, • Behold, how he * loved his kingdom 1 He fo loved it, that be gave his * Souy his ow:! Son, his dearly hzloved., and only bcgcttsn * Son, to die for his offending fcibjeds !' Still more fully to illuQrate the point, we may borrow an Inftance from the facred Scriptures. The offering up of Ifaac, our adverfaries thfmfelves allow, was a type of the facrifice of Jefus Chrid. Ifaac, the delight of his father and his only fon, was bound in order to be facrificed by Abraham himftjlf, nctwithllanding all the yearnings of parental bowels. Thus he became a lively type of Chrifl ; of Him, who is the only begotten of the Father, and in whom he takes infinite and eternal delight. Kim did the Father deliver up to fufferings and forrows, to agonies and death. — The types, which prefigured the death of Chrift, all agree in reprefenting him as fùifeîing in our (lead ; as the ancient facrifiçes CECT. III. 96 CHAP. I. were fu'jflituted in ihe place of thofe for whom they were ofTered, Every type, notwithftandlng, had its particu];ir relation, by which it is diflinguiihed from others. Thus the blood of the pafchal lamb, being fpiinkled on the door-pods of the Ifraelitifh houfcs, fecured the inhabitants from the fword of the dedroyirg angel. So the blood of Chrifl, being fprinkled on our heartô, preferves us from the ftroke of Divine jaflice. But the offering up of Ifaac, being without the fliedding of blood, cannot have this refemblance with Jefus Chrifl, We mud, therefore, look for another, which confids in this: As Abraham offered up his only fon, fo the Divine Father delivered up to death his only begotten Son. — Suppofe, then, any one were to perfuade nnd convince you. That Abraham did not offer up his only fon, nor his oti'ii fon ; but took the fon of Ellczar, gave him the name of Ifaac, and, if you will, put on him the cloaths of Ifaac ; you would immediately forbear to wonder at the obedience and faith of the renowned patriarch, in making no fcruple to facrifice his own and only fon. — We have been wont to look for the in:n^e only, in a type, and for the realily, in its acccmplifh- ment : but, if we believe our adverfaries, we muft invert this order ; we mufl look for the reality in the type, and the image in its accomjjfi/hment. According to this new mode of interpretation, Abraham performed a great and wonderful ad of obedience, by v/hich his faith in the promifes and his love to God have been rendered illudrious to all generations ; for he offered up his own fon, his dear and only fon; and this he did in reality, not in appearance only. But God, in delivering up Jefus to death, gives us only ^ifervant^ whom he calls his Son, that there miglit be a greater appearance of love in his dying for us: fo that thele and fimilar expreffions, *' He fpared not his own Son," arc ufed with little propriety ; are vain and delufive. To advance the dignity of Jefus Chrift, it may, per- haps, befaid j * He, whom God gave to be our Saviour, S£CT. III. 97 CHAP. I. * is the heir of eternal life.* But if he obtained this exalted honour, in confequence of his TuffcTings, and as a reward of his death ; though it may be faiJ, God crowns his fervant to reward his patience ; yet it fiill remains a truth, that he gave us no other than a fervaut, for the redemption of men ; a fervant who was bound to fulfil the Divine law for hlwfclf, being then but an •* unprofitable fervant." The fentiment of our adverfaries is no iefs iniurious to the love and compaiTion of Chrifl, as revealed in the j^ofpel. On their hypothefis, it is depreciated, cbfcured, !o!t If he really fuifereJ in cur fenfe, he underwent, tor a feafon, the weight of the Divine curfe ; his very foul was penetrated by the fword of eternal juilice ; and h: felt the defertion of his Father, with a grief propor- tional to the ardour of his own love. Thus his love to finners is equal to the terrors of God*s avenging juPiice ; under the firoke of which he agonized, bled, and died. — But if he fuffered only in the fenfe of our Ldverfaries ; if he fuffered, v/ithout bearing the fins of men, or fuftiining the punilliment dcferved by thcni ; there was nothing in his death dcferving of our aflonifh- ment, in regard of his love to us, nor any thing very heroical in it. On this fuppofition, Codrus, king of the Athenians, would be as worthy of praife as Jefus Chiifl. For that prince, putting himfelf at the head of his army i.giinft the enemy, and being perfuaded, by the anfwer of fome oracle, that if he himfelf were not (lain in the battle, his fubjefts could not gain the vi<5lory ; threw afide his royal apparel, put on ragged cioaths, went into the camp of the enemy, and fiulhatcd their à&Ç\gn to fave him, by provoking a foldier v/ho flew him. The love which this Athenian prince difcovered for his rabjevfls, by this indance of his concern for their welfare, i'^ equal, more than equal, to that of Chrifl for believers. The former freely gave up his life, with a view to preferve his country from flavery, though uncertain as to a future Hate of exifience : bat the latler lays dov/n I SLCT. liî. §8 CHA?. tt his life in abfolute certainty of Jiving again after three da.^'S, and of reigning for ever with his redeemed. 0:-J the hypothefis oppofed, we have more reafon to ad.r.i-e the h^ve of God to Jefus Chritt, t!ian that which the Valhcr has n^anifefted to us, by him. God, indeed, in the forcivencfs of our fins and ihc fîtlvation of our fouls, manifells his igve and mercy to us ; and this we ought to acknowledge v^ith gratitude and joy. But in the recomnenfe he makes to Jefus Chrill:, for having llilfered death, by making hi;n the depoGtary of all Ipiritual gifts ; by granting him the po'.ver of beflowing eternal life, and cf infiiding eternal death ; and by conferring upon him names of the highefl dignity and exprefhve of Divine authority ; he manifeds his love to him in an unparalleled way — in fuch a manner and to fuch a degree, that Chiift has no reafon to grudge the pains he underwent and the blood that he fhed, in order to arrive at fuch a flate of honour and hnpplnefs. Nay, he could not have done fo well for himfelf in any other way, nor fo much to his own advantage. So that inllead of faying» " God fo loved ihe luorld, that he ** gave his only begotten Son ;" we mud fay, * God fo * joved Jefus Chrljl, that, after he had honoured him * with the title o: his Son, he gave him the world, and * put all things in fubjection to him.' Indead of faying, *♦ He that fpared not his own Son, — hovi^ ihali he not •* with h'lM alfo freely give us all things j" we muft fay, * It is no wonder that he who promifes to give us eternal * lifs, has given us the life of Jefus Chr'tjl.* ' But Jefus Chrid, they will fay, is the mojier and we * ^XQÙxtfi'rvants: it mu(r, therefore, be an extraordinary * zS. of love, for a mader to give himfelf up to death Von purpofe to ranlom flaves ; and fuch flaves as were * his enemies.* — Kere it- is necefTary to confider the Jove of the Father, and the love of the Son, in a feparate view. The Father gives, not himfelf, but Jefus Chrid, to die for us ; and Chrid, it is manifeft, cannot be called najlery with regard to God. In that refpeft, he is as 6ECT. ni. 99 CHAP ï. mach a fervant as any of us ; he being God*s own creature and fubjedl to his laws. God, theicfore, does not give a mafler, but his own fervant. He is, indeed, the mod perfect of all that ever bore the charader, yet he is but a fervant, and muft be fo for ever. So that though the love of God is manifefled, in faving his enemies from dcferved ruin ; yet the excellence of that love is far from appearing in the gift of a fervant — A fervant, that owes his exigence to a fovereign acft of Divine power, and all his ble/Tednefs to tlie communica- tions ofDivine favour-A fervant, who, in the redemption offinncrs, lofes neither his holincfs, happinefs, norglorv : who lofes his life but for three days, by which lofs he obtained the empire of the univerfe ; and who, confc- qiiently, facrihces no great matter on his part. For if he be a mere creature ; if, in fufferirg, he have nothing to fear but death itfelf ; if, by his fuircringS; lie obtain eternal felicity for thofe he redeems ; and if he is to be highly exalted after his abafement, where is the mighty effort of his love ? They who devoted theni- felves for the prefervation of their country, in the certainty of dying, and the uncertainty of living after death ; obtaining for a recompence only an imaginary glory, ^vhich could not abate the horrors of diflolution ; offered much greater violence to themfelvcs than Jefus Chrift did, in all that he underwent. Nay, there aie few men in the world who VvOuld not be ready to fuffcr a fimilar death, on the fame conditions. Where is the man who, if it were in his power, would not be willing to purchafe eternal happincfs for innum.eiable millions of his fellow-creatures, by fuffering the pains of cruci- fixion ; if he were fure to rife again the third day, and to enjoy, as the reward of his fufferings, immenfe felicity, everlafling honours, and dominion overall creatures? It mull therefore, be granted, tliat Jefus Ghrift is not a mere man, and that he did not fufier death like that of other men, who have fallen martyrs to the truth : b-jt that he is really a Divine Perfon, and, being incarnate; 1 2 SiLCT. III. 100 CHAP. I. ^ied under the Orcke cf eternal juftice, as the fubilitute of the guilty, that he might redeem the wretched and iave {ianers from the wrath to come. For, let our ^.dverfarics make ufe of Vvhat evafions they will, they cannot overturn the ào(51rine of our Saviour's Divinity, without cfTcntiallyalterirg theChridian religion ; dellroy- ing the true fenfe of the ancient types ; and fo depreciating the love o( God to Tinners, in the gift of his Son, and the compagnon of Jcfus in dying foi them, as to render il^e itrongefl: and fined expreflions of Scriptuie, refpeding Divine love, little better than arrant bombafl, 4>r mere fjights of imagination. Of this they feein to be confcious, when called to explain themfelves on the fubjed of cur heavenly Father's love, which fo flrongly characlerizes the covenant of grace. * God, fay they, Wâs the Father ' of ju(t men und<.-r the Jewifh œconomy ; but he did * not appear to be fo. This is the reafon why he is ' feldom called Father, in the Old Teftament. Nor is * he fo called there, becaufe he defigns to give us eternal *- life ; but becaufe he created us, and beftows upon us *■ the good thinijs of time.' — The Sociniaas make the wor.detful love of God to confift, in his giving us elernal life; and, in fo doir-g, they fpeak agreeably to their own luniimenis. But the writers of the New Teflamenc Ipeak a different language. They reprefent the infinite j;reatnefs and afiorilhing excellence of God's love, as ;;ppearing in the gift of his own Son. This they confider us the grand evidence that God loves mankind. For thus they fpeak, and thus the Redeemer himfelf i peaks ; " God fo loved the world, that he gave his *• ONLY BF.GOTTEN SoN — In this was manifcdtd the *• love of God, becaufe he fent his oxLy begotten «< Son — He that fpared not his ow^n Son." — This, on the principles of our oppofers, is an infurmountabic difficulty. When they prove God's love to m.en, by his giving them eternal life, we underftand them very well J but when they endeavour to prove it, by the «EC T. m. loi CilAP. I. Father giving to us his Son^ \ve can dilcein but little propriety, or truth, in what thcy'fXy. They, indeed, tell us, * That God, in giving his * only Son to be a facritlce for our fins, engages hinifelf * to us, by a pledge of inefHmable value ; apd jiromifes, * not only to forgive our tranigrelTions, tut alfo to give * us eternal life. And by the nianifellation of this great * love to us, when we were his enemies, he effectually * draws and reconciles us to himfelf. And, as he will * not forgive our fifis but by means of his Son, who * gives.hinifelf fcr ilu^ni ; he thereby engages and fabjeds * us to his Son : and at the finie time declares how * much he ab!iors thofe fins, which mud be exy.iûtcd by * his Son's blood ; and what an ave: fion we alfo ought * to have for thtm.' — Such reafoning is only calculated to conceal the weaknefs of the caufe it is iiJtcnded to defend. For, not being able to prove the giea'nefs of God's love to mankind, in that v/ay which the apoftles lake to exalt it; that is, " by the gift of his own *' Son ;" our adveifaries prudently coliecl fuch con- fiderations as are, exclufive of i^s grand evidence, beft fitted to difcover the Father's afredion for us. Thefe confiderations are, the remiOion of fins and eternal life; our being enemies to God, when he formed the defign of faving us ; and thofe inducements to holinefs, which are drawn from the method in which our fins are forgiven. Eut thefe confideraticns, however great and noble in their proper places, leave thw difficulty before us in its full force. For our inquiry is, Whether God prefcnts us with a great, a wonderful, an incomparable gift, when he gives the life of a. mere man for onr fslvation ? 7^I)is is the queflion before us; nor will the followers cf Socinus ever be able to fatisfy eit4ier themfclves, or' others, up6n it. * God, fay they, in giving his Son, engages himfelf, ' by a pledge of ineftimable value, to give us eternal * life.* — But can it be faid of a mere nian, how holy iiojcver he be, that he is a pledge of inpjîimalk value? ' 13 SLOT. 111. 102 CHAP. I. Or, can the gift of his temporal life, which he parts with only for three days, be confidered as a pe;fer oi.r opponents will not allow that he has two natures. K.s K ^r.cr. m. i lo chap. n. bam?n nature, conreqnentiy, mufl hare been manifcfted ii) the ficfn ; the very thought of wliich is big with abfurdlty. But the tenets of cur sdverraries not only militate againfi: the nu'liery of God's maniftdiition in the lîefh ; for they delhoy alt the rnylleries at once, by removing ^\•hatever is difiicuk in religion. — The doflrine of the crofs, as reprefented in the New Tcftiment, has fome things in it which are fubiime and wonderful, difficult and incornprdheafible ; things which are contrary to the div5iate3 of depraved reafon, and to our natural prejudices. Hence it is called by one who was thoroughly acquainted with it; *' A (rumbling block to tlie Jews, and fooiifh- ** nefs to the Greeks." But what is there myrterious and incomprehennble in the crofs of Chrift, if he be a mere man ? Did the Jews never fee a man, who was acceptable to God, periecuted by the wicked ? Did the fervants of God never fuffer death, to fjgnalize their zeal, or to confirm the truth ? If there be any myftery in the crofs of Chriit, it niui^ be, eiilicr becai.fe he is a righteous man who f offers ; or a prophet ; or the Son of God. ]>iolihQjirj7 ; fur neither Jews noï Gentiles can look upon the death of an innocent man, under the pov/er of his perfecators, as a new, or a llrange thing. Not the fecondi for many prophets had been feen to die for the truth. Nor, according to our adverfaries, can it be the laji ; for, if we believe them, he is the Son of God only by a metaphor : or, at mofl, as Adam was in his fud llate ; having been formed immediately by the power of God, and enriched with his gifts and graces. Paul fpeaks of " the foollfhnefs of preaching, by <' which God faves them that believe." The gofpel is called fooUponefs^ becaufe it contains fach things as appear incredible, and really are incomprehenfible. But what is there of this kind, in the gofpel, if the fydem of cur oppofers be fcriptural ? For they remove, or pretend to reniove, all the principal difBculcies out o^ SECT. TH. tu CH \P. II. the way. Ts not this a rtrong prefumpiion that their gofpe), and their chriîHanity, are very different from thofe which Paul preached and profofled ? — Common ferfe and a moderate (hsre of impartiality muft. f.irelv, allow, that there are more difficulties and greater obfcu- ri.ty in thofe obje(5ts which the gofpel reveals, than i;* thofe prefented to u«; in the v^^orks of creation. And yet, if the hypothefis which we oppofe be admitted, there are more myfleries in the 1 mailed: ipdedt, in a fpirt efgrafs, or in a grain of fand, than in all theChrifiiaa religion. — There were many things under the ancien'- Jewini œconomy that were grand, fublimL\ atid niylle- rious ; yet they are not denominated myjhties, by th j Holy Spirit, as thofe under the gof])el-difpenfation ar^j. Nor were the objecfts of the law ever faid to be flnli/hrufs^ on account of their being contrary to hiiinan prejudices i rnd y'.n, if our opponents be in tlie li^ht, theie were greater myfleries under the law, than any wc have unu.i- the gofpel. God, for inflance, appealing in the burning- bufti, was a greater niyftery, than " God manifefled ♦' in the flefli." The hypothefis which we oppofe, fuperfedes tli; receilky and dedroys the nature oï true faith : the nature- and excellence of which confdl, in receiving fuch truths as lie beyond the powers of reafon to dilcover ; fuc-i truths, as we could not receive, but upon the telHmony of God who reveals them. Faiih and light are different things. By the latter we receive fuch truths as have ;l natural relation to our notions and light ; by the former, fuch as are contrary to our prejudices, on the b ire autho- rity of God in the Scriptures. Whereas this dillinâiou is utterly deftroyed, if the gofpel reveal no obje»5ts, it" the Chridian religion contain no truths, but fuch as are level to our capacities, and as agreeable to them as natural truths. But we lliall have occafion to refucîî' the confideration of thefe thinos h.erciirur. K Z SKCT. III. 1Î2 CHAP. III. CHAPTER III, The hrpothcfis of our adverfaries deprives Jesus Christ of hià higheft honour; by making him prflcfs thofc Titles in a metaphorical ienfe, which th*? Scripture applies to Iiim ia yne that is proper. '1 h s proved by two inlîanccs. CtREATLY diversified and truly fublime ire the titles of honour and grace, that are given by the Holy Spirit to the great Redeemer ; but which, on the principles of our adverfaries, have little lignificancy in tl-em. I fiiall here make choice of twa, as a fj^ecimen : one of which is mod (Irongly adapted to exprefs his verfonal dignity and eflential glory ; the other, his grace ard work as our Mediator. The titles 1 mean are, The Son of God, and Th5 Saviour; both whk!» are frequently applied to him in the Scripture. Jefus Chrif}, it is evident, is frequently and emphati- cally called, " The Son of God— His ow« Son — The *' begotten of the Father — His only begotten Son — And, *' the Son of the Father in truth and love.'* — It muft, th.erefore, be allowed, that God has a Son, who is, in îhe molt emphatical fenfe, his own ;, who is his Son in a higher ftufe, than thofe who are fo called in virtue .of adoption. It muil alfo be acknowledged, that they who are the children of God by adoption, have a claim to the chara'fier oï fins in a Wronger feufe, than they A\ho are fo called only by a metaphor. Eut our opponents invert this order. For, according to them, Chrift cannot be called The Son of God, but only by a figure : and, on the other hand, believers are the fons of God by adoption, though they be fo only in Jefas Chrift. But how can a metaphorical fon, be more truly a fon, than adopted fons ? And how can adopted fons owe their adoption to a metaphorical fon I ^For, either Chrift is bimfelf adopted by the Father, fi£CT. III. 113 CHAP. III. or he is not. If the former^ how comes it that the Holy Spirit, tho-^gh he often fj^eaks of the adoption of believers, (hould never fay a word of his adoption ? Why is this ianpua^ç unknown to ihe Bible; * God has * adopleil his Son, Jcfus Chrifl ?' and fo unknov/n, that it would be looked upon as blafphcmous. if the latter^ he is only a metaphorical fon : for he is not fo by nature ; our adverfaries cannot bear the exprcflion. Nor is he •fo by adoption ; for the language of Scripture does not allow the thought. It follows, therefore, that he is fo only by a metaphor ; and, confcquently, the fonfliip of believers is of a fjpcrior kind to that of Jefus Chrift. The title, " Sons of God,*' which believers bear, has ever been juftly efiecmed an eminent proof of their interefl in the Father's love, li is a glorious and won- derful fruit oî Divine grace, and as fuch thc)' acknow- ledge it with gratitude and joy. But the chara6îcr, S ok, which Jefus bears, ought never to be confidered in that light. For it cannot be faid, He is the Son of God, becaufe God loves him; but, God loves him becaufe he is h\s Son. The beloved difciple fays, ** Behold, what " manner of love the Father hath beftowcd upon us, «* that we fhould be called the fons of God!" But we never hear any of che infpired writers fay, ' Behold, * how God loves Jefus Chriit, that he /hould call him * his Son 1* The reafon is, the exalted character is foreign and accidental to us ; but proper and tHential to him. In refpeft of us, it is matter of mere fiwour ; in regard of him. it is his et.ern.1l right. Jefus, the Son of God, is faid to be ** in the bofom " of the Father," and to " fit at the right hand of God." In the hojom of the Father — At the right hand of God. Of thefc two characlerirtics, the former is more peculiar to the Son of God, as fuch. It is a mark of faperior honour to be feated at the right hand ; but of the greeted affcc'lion to reft on the bofom. And as it is more na.iural to love, than to honour, a Son ; fo, to be *' in the bofcm of the Father," is a fituatioa more K3 f.i:CT. ill. 114 ÔHAP. Ill, peculiar to the Son of God, as fuch, than that of litting at his violu hand. — But we fliail have occafion, when anfwciing the objeiStionsofourcppofers, in theconcludirg Sefiion of this work, to confider the Sonfhip of Jelus Chrill; more at large. I proceed, therefore, and briefly obferve, That the chara^ler, Saviour, fo frequently and To difiinguifhingly given to Jefus Chrift, entirely lofts iis gracious and glorious import, on the principles of our opponents. Por if he be a mere man ; if the whole which he did for us be included, in preaching the gofpel, in fuffering perfecution and death, to fet us an example of patience and to confirm the truth which he taught ; he has done but little m.ore for us than the apodles and -martyrs themfelves. On this fuppofition it is hard to fay, what benefit any of the human race, who died before he appeared in the world, could receive from his undertaking. If thefe were the only, or the principal benefits we receive from him, we may venture to affert, that Mofes was more truly the Saviour of the Ifiaelites, than Jefus Chrilt is of mankind. For Mofes himfelf did that, which Chrill does principally by his apojiks. The former delivercd the chofen tribes out of flavery ; the latter is only called a deliverer, while he leaves us to fave ourfelves. Mofes, indeed, did not fuffer death as Chrift did ; but then, as to a real and proper atcre- ment, or as a price of redemption, the death of Jefus is as unprofitable to us, as the death of that ancient law- j.iver would have been to the poiterity of Jacob. But îliis particular muft be the fubjed of the next Chapter. SECT. III. 115 CHAP. IV. CHAPTER IF, According to the fentimcnts of our advcrfaries, the Death of Christ has no real Ufefuhiefs in it. J. HEY who are acquainted with the gofpel of divine grace cannot but know, that the death of Chrift is not only ufeful, but abfolutely necefTriry to our falvation. His vicarious obedience and atoning death, ^re the grand fubjedl of the minirtry of reconciliation. Hence the determination of Paul, " to knov/ nothing "but Jefus Chrift and him crucified;" and to glory only in the crofs of his crucified Lord. This interefting truth was clearly taught by the ancient prophets. Witnefs that famous oracle, in the fifty-third Chapter of Ifaiah ; which contains fo many illm'lrioLiS charaderiilics of the Mtfllah, depending upon .his death ; and that animated defcription of his fufferings and forrows, in the twenty-fecond Pfalm. — John the Eaptift no fooner fees Jefus than he points him out, as an atoning facrilice. " Behold," fays tiiat venerable teacher, " behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh *• away the fm of the world !" — Chrilt himfelf, when difcourfing familiarly with his difciples, frequently foretels his own death. And when one of his apoftles endeavours to difluade him from going up to Jerufalem thereto fuffer, he fharply rebukes him for it ; offuch importance was it, in his elteem, to the falvation of man and the glory of God. And when he was expiiing on the crofs he ciied, with his laft breath, " Ins finished;'» plainly implying, that his death is of the laft importance ; that his death comprehends all. The propitiatory death of our great High-prieft was foretold in the earliell promifes, and prefigured in the ancient types, The dying Jefus was reprefented by the SECT. III. Il6 CHAP. IV. pafchallamb; which was facrificed in Egypt, inflead of the firlt born of the Ilraelit'^sj the blood of which, being fprinkled on the door-poits of their houfes, fecured them from the fword of the deilroying angel. For, as the pafchal-lamb ranfomed the firit-born, being facrificed for them ; fo Jefus delivers believers from the fword of Divine juftice, by dying in their ftead. It is neceiTary, however, to be obferved, that as thofe things which were but imperfedly reprefented under the lav/, are fully accompiiihed under the gofpel ; there is this diffeier.cc between the type and the antitype : The former, though not an equivalent for the life of a man, was accepted of God ; becaufe the defign then was, not to male fati?fac- lion to God's juftice ; but only to prefigure that faciificc which was to make a full fatisfa^tion. But Chrift is a worthy ranfom j a fubftitute, whom we need not feat being rcjedted, as inferior to thofe for whom he dies. He is, therefore, called, " The Lamb of God." He iï THE Lamb, by way of excellence ; the only lamb that can atone for our fins and ranfom our fouls. Such is the import of the phrafe, according tothe (lyle ofinfpira- tion ; in which it is common to add the Divine name to ■anything that is peculiarlyexcellent, great, orremarkable. As, for indance ; " The mountains of God ; the *' cedars of God ; the garden of God ;" and here, *' The Lamb of God ;'* — Our dying Surety was reprefented by the fcape-goat, on the great day of expiation. To fulfil this type, therefore, he mud: bear our fins; he mufl be anathema; he muft be made a curfe for us- For if not, why was he reprefented by this goat ? What was there, in any other view, common between them ? — I might, on this occafion, multiply particulars out of the Jewiih ritual, but thefe may fuffice. That the application we make of thefe ancient types is not fanciful and forced, the facred penmen of the New Teltament abundantly fhew. They unite in affuring us, That *' Chrifl" our paiTover is facrificed for ^» us — That hç is the Lamb çf O^d, which taketh a\vay SECT. III. I 17 t'HAP. IV. ** the fm of the world — That he himfelf bare our fîng *» in his own body on the tree — -That he was made (In " for us — That he was made a curfe for us — That he " gave his lite ^ ranfcm for many— That he was *' delivered for our offences — That he hanh reconciled *' and redeemed us to God by his blood — That his *' blood purges the corfcicnce from dead works, and " cleanfeth from all fin." — Thefe declarations arc perfc'flly conformable to the language of prophecy^ in >vhich it is faid ; *' The Lord hath laid on him the *• iniquity of us all — He (hall make his fou! an offering *' for fm — The MeHiah fhall be cut otf, but not for ** himfelf — For the tranfgrelTion of my people was he " Itricken — He was wounded for our tranlgrcllions, he *' was bruifed for our iniquities, the chaftifemcnt of our ** peace was upon him, and with his firipes we are ** healed." — Wliat, now, can we infer from thefe, and 2. multitude of fimilar paflages in the Book of God, but that the death of Chrifl was vicarious; that he died, rot only for our goody bat in our JleaJ; and that hig death has procured for us, not fome trifling benefit only, but remiflion of fins and eternal life ? being a full fativ fa3n to Divine jufiice ; his hfe cannot be fo valuable as the etern.il happincfs of thofe he redeems; and, confec]uent!y, the gift of tlie former cannot afTure us that we Ihall have the latter. * The death of Chrifl is alfo of ufe to confirm his * doctrine.* — Suppofe it be, yet it cannot be the grand ufe of it ; bccaufe the Scriptures never mention it as fiich, where the benefits refulting fioni it are enumerated. Befides, if this were ils principal ufe, it would be of much lefs advantage to us than his life ; the latter being ~ abundantly better adapted to confirm his do^rine. •His life is all glorious with great, beneficent, aftonifhing ■works, which prove that the doflrine he teaches is truly Divine; becaufc Heaven, by a thoufiind miraculous fads, gives him an unfufpc(51cd te(Hmony. But though his death plainly ftiews, that he Jhic::rcJy believes his doctrine to be Divine ; yet, feparatcly confidered, it does not prove that it is fo in reality. . Nor is he the only perfon who confirmxcd the truths which he taught, by fuffering a violent death. In this rcfpe<5t there was notliing in his death bat what v/as common to prophet?, apsAIes, and martyrs. — Again ; To whom fliould the death of Clirift confirm the truth of his dodrine ? to his enemies or his friends ? Not his enernics ; for the greatefl and mc;l dreadful part of his fufferings was unobferved by them. They neither beheld his bloody agony in the garden, nor knew the caufe of his bitter cry on the crofs. And as to thofe f^jiferings v/hich did come under their notice» they looked upon them as the jufl reward of his fuppofed bhfphemy. — Not his f rien tis ; for his death was confidered by them in a very different point of light. So far from conjirming, that it Jla^gered their iVith in his doftrine ; and they cried out, *' We trufted ** tha- it had been he which ft>!)uld have redeemed ÔECT. III. 120 CHAP. IV, *< Ifrael." Riy, were we to confider the death ofChrifl:, V'itliout any reference to an atonement for fin, to his preceding nr.iracles, and fubfequent refurrcétion ; it would be fo far from confirming liis dodrine, that it would prove the firongcft confutation of it that malice iifelf could defire. But what dok^iine is the death ofChrifl fujîpofed to confirm ? Is it that of for^ivniefs with Gcd ? That our oifcnded Sovereign \A\\ pardon Jlnncr s ? Far, very far from it, on the principles of our cppofers. For by what mode cf argi;mentation fnall we infer, that becaufe a pcrfsBly innuceni and righteous perfon was treated v/ith fuch feverity, by the eternal God ; that he will exercife his pardoning mercy on criminals, who deferve to perilh ? The natural, tlie unavoidable inference, is of a contrary kind. For if fuch things were done in a green tree, wliat (hall be done in the dry I If judgment began with the holy Jefus, where fhall the finner and the ungodly appear ! if God fpared not his own Son, how much lefs will he fpare his enemies ! Kov/ fhould thinking men believe Jefus v/hen hs tells them, that God will pity and pardon finners ; while they behold their Maker treating the holy Teacher himfelf with fjch alarming feverity ? The death of Chrift, therefore, detached from a confideration of its being fatisfactory to the claims of Divine juilice, or an atonement for (in ; is fo far from being a fource of hope to the guilty, that it k calculated to raife in their breads the mod awful appre- henficns, and to fink theni in utter defpair. * In the death of Chrift we have an admirable example * of patience' — Granted; but then it is on our principles, not on thofe of our opponents. He has given fuch an example of patience as never had, nor ever will have its equal; for he not only endured the fierce totnitnts of crucifixion, but fudained, which was infinitely more dreadful, the wrath of God. •' He was made fin — ** he was made a curfe for us." A])pcaring as our ilibditute, the fword of eternal juflice awoke upon him, S£CT. III. 121 CHA?. iV. and he was deprived, for a feafon, of his Father's prcfence ,* a privation the more keenly fenlible, bccaul^ his love to the Father was fervent, confiant, perfect Yes, Jefus, the dear, the adorable Jefus, underwent ihofe pains and forrows, thofe agonies and horrors, which are included in the penal fmcflioB of the law, and which the juuice of God inflicis, when fatisfudion for fin is required. Who, then, v/ho can forbear to wonder at his patience and fortitude ? But the do(5lrine of our opponents, gires us a very different view of our fjffering Lord. For if he fuffercd only in their fenfe, there have been much greater examples of patience and fortitude in multitudes cf inartyrs. Many of thofe faithful witnelTes fulfered for a much longer time, and under a greater variety of keener torments; and yet, indead of being overwhelmed with forrow, were tranfported with joy. This is a certain fa<5t, but quite aftonidiing and perfedly unac- countwible, on the hypothefis v\'hich we oppofe. It fhocks reafon and daggers faith; it nonplufles imagination and glares on the mind as an impious abfurdity. What, (liall He who is perfed, (hall tlis Lion of the tribe of Judah, be terrified at the approach of death ; a death in which he fufFers no fenfations cf Divine vengeance, nor any bitternefs of the Divine curfe denounced againit fin ; while his fervants, who have all their ilrength and confolation from Jiini, triumph in the midfl: of torments! What, fiiall he be feized with agonizing forrows, while they are tranfported with joy ! What, ftiali he fwetft blood at the approach of death, while they behold a Divine hand wiping off their blood and fvveat, for as to tears they do not fiied one ! He complains that God has forfaken him, while they rejoice that evcrlading arms embrace and fjpport them ! — Wkiat could be the reafon of this aftonifliing difference ? It muft have been, either on the part of God, or on that of fécond caufl';, or on that of the futTering perfon. It was not on the part oï ftcond caufes i for the torments of the martyrs L 5LCT. lil. 122 CHAP. I v. v/ere, I v.ill not fay ejunl in cUiration and degree, but Vi\ n-:any infltmces '^rsaûy fu/.cfior. ÏJor on the part cF \\\Q Jiiffiring [fvfjn ; becp.iifc Chrid- had incomparably ii-iore Itrength and holinefs than the mariyrs. It mufl then have been on the part of God, who minidered abundantly mere confobtion to the martyrs than he did' to Jtfus Chriir. Bat wliy fo, if he did not look upon him as the (înner's lîibititute r Considered as the Son- of God, he was always, even uhtn he hung on the crofs, the object of his Father*s inlinite lo-ve : confequently, li God had viewed him under that charadler only, he' would, in the time of his fufferings, have been a partaker of joys vatUy faperior to thofe wliich tlie martyrs pof- Isffed. It may, perhaps, be faid, * Chi if! was perfectly holy * and entirely innocent when he fuffered death ; not fo * the martyrs.* — They v/ere, however, innocent with refpect to the. caufe for which they fuffered. Eefides, the fenfe of a man's innocence does not ufe to aggravate his fufferings, but rather to fipport and comfort him under them. This Jeftis himfelf declares, when he fays ; *'• Blefled are they which areperfecuted for righteoufnefs *' fdke.*' — Equally unavailing wouJd it be to fay, * Jefus * was the f.rlt in fuffering fuch afHidlions ; and they who « fet the example generally fuffer mod.' For it is not he that he was the firft martyr. He himfclf tells us, that the prophets were perfecuted before him ; and encourages his difciolcs, by this very corfideration. And though this might ferve to jijÛify a fmall difference, between h. number of fufferers ; yet it cannot pofiibly account for that amazing difparity which is found, if v/e only confider external things, .between the fortitude of Chriil: and that of the martyrs. — It was not long after the death of Jefus that Stephen was Pioned. The ^rcat number of martyrs, therefore, whom he had feen- die for the truth, could not have raifcd his patience and courage to that heroical pitch, v/hich he difcovered on the occafion. Yet thofe virtues flione with a much <^CT, ÎIÎ. 123 CHAP. IVo "brigiitcr ladre in him, than tliey did in his dyir^g MaHer, if we only regard outward appearances. The latter Is immerfe.d in forrow ; the former is elevated with joy. And, when furroundcd hy his cruel enemies, he cried net ; *' Behold, I fee the heavens opened, and the Son *• of man (landing on ihc right hand of God !" One is affl:i5led beyond mcafure in his thoughts of God, and ^fays; ** My God! my God! why ha! i thou rorfakcn ** me ?" The other is tranfported with glad nefs, at the fight of his afcended Lord ; and the joy which Tpaîkies In his eyes and fliines in his coun:enunce, renders his Jacc like that of an angel. Who, now, on the Sccinian rtypothefîs, can account f.)r this aftoniihing difTevencc. Some, indeed, have fuppofed, * That the body of * Chrid, being formed immediately by the Holy Gho'U * w-is more lenfible of pain than the bo.iics of other * men.' — Bat who is able to prove that a body mud be more fenfible of [>ain, becaufc it was formed by the Holy Spirit, and is the refidence of perfcvfl hoiinefs ? iBefides, Jefus did not fuffer in his bodv, when he was .in the garden of Gethfemanc. His futTerings were then of a mental kind ; yet fo great were they that he fweat blood. Nay, hs exprefsly declared, that his foul was forrowfal, e.'^ceeding forrowful, forrowful €\(^\ unto death; when no human hand was upon him, when no human enemy was near him, and before he fuffered the lead pain in his body, except what was occafioned by the agonies of his mind. The frowns of his Father, who was then aflening the rights of his violated law, were chiefly fenfible to him throiigh tho whole of his pafiion. Thefe penetrated his very foul. It evidently appears, from the hidory of his fuffering?, that his bodily pains did not ruffle the temper of his mind. He had as much command of himfelf, in that refpe^fl, when he hung on the crofs, as when in familiar converfe with his difciples. Witnefs that faying to hi* mother, " Woman, behold thy Son I" and to the •.Moved difciple, ♦« Son, behold thy mother!" Witnefu L 2 y^ECT. III. 124 CHAP. IV. slfo his glorious promire to the penitent thief; *'• Verily *' I fay unto thee, this day (halt thou be with me in ** paradife." — To as little purpofe would it be to fuppofe, * That his overwlielming forrows were occalioned by * the bafe ingratitude of the Jews.' For, to jmblifh the word of life to ungrateful men, and to be recompenfed with perfecurion and death, were common to him with înultitudes of martyrs. Belides, this was far from being the firft time that he experienced the ingratitude of his nation. Nay, he very well knew, long before, that this ingratitude would run fo high as to be tlîc death of him ; and of this he had informed his difciples. The ingratitude of the Jews might add to his forrow ; but it could not be the principal caufe of his anguilli, neither in the garden, nor on the crofs. Unlefs, therefore, we would make another gcfpel, we mud acknowledge, that the defertion of his Father lay neareft his heart. He confidered the time of his paflion, as *' the hour and power of darknefs ;*' when infulting tongues and violent hands, the rage of hell and the wrath of God, were all united to plunge him deep in accumulated and confummate woe. — Once more ; If the approbation of God ufually comfort them that fuffer in a righteous caufe, how came it to pafs that Chrift was uot relieved by it ? And if the certainty of pofTeffing ;?n eternal and bltrffcd life, caufed the martyrs to (hed jheir blood with joy ; fliould not the certainty which jefus had, not only of living in confummate happinefs for ever, but aifo of making others everladingly bleffed, fill him with unfpeakable joy ? What, fhall men who tire accuftomed to love the earth, rejoice to leave it ; while Jefus Chrift, who is perfe611y free from every fordid and fin fui paflion ; while He who is the perfe^ riattern of every moral excellence, is feized with a thoufand mortal terrors, juft as he is going to heaven ! This is, on the Socinian principles, abfurd to imagine ; impoflihle to be true. SECT. III. 125 CHAP V. To conclude : If Jefus died for us only in the [tnfc of our adveifaries, his death and that of the martyr? fland much on a level, in point of advantage to us. And if fo, it is unaccountably ilrange that the Holy Gholl: Hiould put fuch a ditTercnce bsiwccn the one and. the other. " Was Paul crucified for you ? cr uere ye ** baptized in the nan>e of Paul ?'* We were net, indeed, baptized in the name of that apcftle ; but, if the dodrine of Socinus be true, Paul and Jefus mtfl have died for us in the fame fenfe, and for the fame ç.Vi'X, CHAPTER V, ■u'iic fentimenfs of our advcrf.;rics render the language of Scrip» ture obfcure and fulfe, ablurd and impious. Jl HÎS is the Lui of thofe propoGtions v.diich we engaged to prove in this Seélion ; and the principal mean to fhew, That Chrill and his apofiies have led us into a complicated and pernicious error, if the fentiments of our oppofers be true. Thofe paffages of Scripture which we fliall produce, on this occanon, are fuch as refer, either to the original (late of Jefus Chriil, or to his pre-exiflence, cr fuch as reveal his eternal Divinity ; of all which in their order. Of the frjl fort are the follov/in^r. «« What and if ** ye fhall fee the Son of man afcend where he was ** before ? — I am the bread which came down from ** heaven — No man hath afcended up to heaven, but he " that came down from heaven — He that cometh from *' above, is above all : he that is of the earth, is earthly, ** andfpeaketh of the earth ; he that cometh from heaven ** is above all — The firft man is of the earth, earthy : **.ihe fécond man is the Lord from heaven— * I came down i- 3 SECT. 111. 126' CHAP. y. " from heaven, not to do my own will, but tlie will of him *' tliat fent me — I came forth from the Father, and am •' come into the v/orkl : again, I leave the world, and *' go to the Father — I proceeded forth, and came from ** God ; neither can>e I of myfelf, but he fent me— *' Now that he afcended, what is it but that he alfo •* defcended firft, into the lower parts of the earth ?" In thefe, andfimilar pafTages, as they are explained by our opponents, v/e can difcern neither wifdom nor propriety, neither truth nor commojn fenfe, but quite the reverfe. For all that we find in Jefus Chrifl, confidered as a mere man, is, that he had afoul created immediately by the power of God ; that "his body was formed in the -womb, by the agency of the Divine Spirit ; that lie received, in an extraordinary manner, thofe gifts of the Holy Gtioft, which were necefTary to difcharge the work of his minidry ; and that he v/as inveded w^Lth his office and fent of God to perform it among men. 13ut if Jefus may be faid, " To have proceeded from ** God ; to have come down from heaven, and to have " been with God, in the beginning ;" becaufe his foul ■was created immediately by the power of God ; the fame things may be affirmed of men in general. For every man has a fpirit that returns to God who gave it. Thus it might be faid of any man. What and if ye fee him îïfcend where he was hefore ? And each might fay of himfelf, I came down from heaven — 1 proceeded from the Father, and came into the woild ; and now I leave the world and go to the Father. And fo every one might have a fharc in thofe privileges and honours, which have been always confidered as peculiar to Jefus Chrift. — And though the body of Chrift was formed by the immediate power of the Holy G4ioft, yet that is far from being a fufficient reafon for thefe and fimilar «xpreflions ; " I came down from heaven — I came ** from God." For Adam'^ body was formed immedi- ately by the hand of God ; and yet the Scripture is far ^Qm ipeakin^ Qf gur ^reat prqgcniwr after ibis inanacx , SECT. in. 127 CHAP. V. fo far from it, that the language ufcd is of a dirccflly contrary figRiiication. For the Spirit of infpiraiion, ipeaking of Adam, fays ; ** The firft man is of the earth, "** earthy ; the fécond man is the Lord from heaven." * Jefus Chrilt, h will be faid, was not only conceived * in a Divine manner, but was alfo repleniflied with the * gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit ; and in that refpedl * he may be fa»d to come from God, and to come down * from heaven : becaufe it is the work, of God to raife * up a man in afupernatural way, and to endue him with ** the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In much the fame fenfe * as when it is faid, *' Every good gift, and every ** perfe»fl gift, is from above, and cometh down from the <* Father of lights,'* Or, as in that ouefHon, ** The ** baptifm of John, v/as it from heaven, or of men :" and in oppofition to the meaning of thofe words, ** This wifdomdefcendeth not from above, but is earthly, ** fenfual, dcvilifti." — But thefe pafTages are fir from -being parallel, arc very unfuitable en this occafion. For there is a valt difference between fpeaking thus of certain qualities^ which are noffufceptible of local motion ; and, confequently, cannot be faid, but in a figurativ* fenfe, to go or come, to defcend or afcend ; and fpeaking thus of a/>a'ntained ? Hofet, fw SECT. Ht. 132 CHAP. V. indance, afcended the mountain livlcg, to be in{lru<5led in tlie law and will of the Lord ; muft we, therefore, conclude, that Jefus went up twice into heaven, on a fimilar account ? Mofes, when on the mount, fafieJ forty days and forty niglits, and that once and again ; mufl we from hence infer, that Chi id went up into heaven a firft and a fécond time, and that he fafled twice, when there, for an equal fpace of time ? The former, coming down from the mount, braie the tables of the law ; and, defccnding from it a fécond time, brought other tables wfth him, which were preferved ; was there any thing fimiiar in the conduél of Jefus ? When Mofes came down from the mount, fo great was the Ivfire of his countenance that the Ifraelites could not fteadily behold him, till he had put a vail on his face ; but will any one fa)', that the countenance of Chrift ihone, when he came down from heaven, and that he alfo was obliged to vail his face, before his difciples could convcrfe with him ? None will pretend to carry the parallel fo far, between the Jewifh lawgiver and his glorious Antitype. Confequently, as the relations of the types ought not to be carried to excefs, it is unwarrantable, it is abfurd, to ground the truth of a îîippofed fadt, which is otherwife unknown, on fuch comparifons as may be juflly elteemed the flights of imagination. ^ut were we to admit the conjeâure of our adverfaries, their caufe would receive but little advantage from it ; becaufe it would not be fufEcient to juftify thofe expref- fions which defcribe our Lord as coming doivn from heaven. For fuppofmg he did afcend into heaven, yet he was there but for a fhort fpace of time : he did not afcend thither, as to a place where he fixed his ordinary abode, that being peculiar to his fécond afcen- fion. Why, then, (hould the Scripture fay, He was to afcend " where he was before?'* Where he .^nd, that Chrifl e?vi(ted in heaven, before his concep- tion, as in his natural place. For what elfc can be the primary import of fuch expreffions as theft? "What *' and if ye fhall fee the Son of man afcend where he * was before? He came from above — He came down '■ from heaven — The fécond man is the Lord from *■'■ heaven." But this idea is falfe^ if Jefus be a mere iv.an. — Again : Our Lord has heaven for his original, i;T a much higher fenfe than any other man. For tJie Scripture oppofcs him to all others, becaufe they ar-e from Icluiv^ but he from above : they are of the earthy l)vit he is from heaven. But this reprefentation is not ii::cording to truth, if Jefus be by nature a mere man. For, as fuch, he cannot be from above, or from heaven, Lut eiiher becaufe he had God for his original ; or becaufe God fent him ; or becaufe he was replenifhed with Divine gifts; or becaufe he was predeftinated to the glory of heaven. But all thefe particulars agree to other men. For God is the immediate caufe of their fouls. He immediately produced both the body and foul of the fir ft man. lie fent the prophets and apollJes, and endued them with extraordinary and miraculous gifts. He prcdeftinated his people to the enjoyment of e'.erna' happincG; and Gts them, by the fan(5lifying •SECT. Ill* Ï37 CHAP. V. influences of the Koly Ghofl, for the fruition of "lory in the h'.jsvenly world. Confequently, as none of thefe characters are peculiar to Chrift, but common to him with many other men ; prophets, apolh'es, and thoufinds more, may be faid to *' come from above ; •' to come down from heaven ; and to come from God," in the fame {'cvSq in which thofe words are applied to Jefus Chrirt. — So, on the other hand, if we believe our opponents, Chvill: is from bsJowy and of the earthy in the fame fcTife that we are. We are faid to he from b^lozo, and to be ff ihs earthy either bccaufe we have a grofs, terrelhial nature ; or becaufj cur bodies were firlt taken out of the eanh. Jefus has alfo a corporal nature, and his body was formed of matter which came originally from the earth, as well as ours. Nor would It avail to fay, * That it was refined and faîliioncd by * the Holy Spirit.* For the matter of which the body of Adam was made, received its human form fioni the immediate power of God. In a, word, Chrift, on the So:inian piinciples, may be conGdered, either zz a man, or as a mefienger of God. Under the lattsr of thefe confiderations, he C'xmQ from above; he came down from /jeuven ; becaufc his call was immediately from God. But then if this were the only fenfe in which he c^me from God, he would have no pre-eminence above the ancient propliets. if v/e confider him under the former view, he muft have come from heaven, either in refpeft of his body, or in regard to his foul. If the /alter, becaufc it was 'brought into exigence by the immediate pcv/er of God ; he has no advantage above men in general. For it is written, " The fpirit fhall return to God who gave it." if the former, becaufe it was produced by Divine power ; it is common to him with other men. If on account of its being produced in a miraculous manner ; •it is an honour in which ifaac and John the Bapti/I: fhared. If becaufe it v/as produced zviikoiit the interven- (ion of man j 1 1 is common to him wiih the firlt Adam. M 3 SECT. m. 138 >CHA1% V, This leads me (o obferve, that thofe paflages of v^ciipture fiom which we argue, naturally fuggell to our miiids, not only that Jefus came from above and came down from heaven, in a much nobler fenfe than rien in general, or than tlie firft man in particular; but alio, that it is in this very refped, that he is incomparably fuperior to our common parent, the firft Adam. According to that faying ; <« The firft man is *'• of the earth, earthy ; the lecond man is the Lord *' from heaven." But, if Jefus be a mere man, this mull be falfe. For, as fuch, he comes of the earth, as cur great pregenitor did,; and the firft Adam came fiom heaven in much the fame ft-nfe, as the Second. — Again : The Scriptures teach us to confider Jefus as liumbling and abafing hinifelf, when he came into cur world ; becaufe they reprefent him as comiKg from heaven, a place cf perfect holincfs and glory ; to eartli, \»hich is the refidence of impurity, diforder, and trouble. — Thus it appears that the pafTages we have examined, are calculated, on the Socinian hypothefis, to raife fulfe ideas in our minds. The above declarations of the Holy Giioft, if under- {locd according to the fentiments of our opponents, prcfcnt us with a fenfe which is aljurd and ridiculous. To prove this, we need only confider them in connec- tion with their comment. When explaining thcfe Vords ; " What and if ye fliall fee the Son of man *' afcend where he was before:" they pretend that thts claufe, " where he was before ;" is to be underilood fguratively. * Jefus means, fay they, that the Son of * man had been in heaven, before he afcended thither * after his refurreeak thus cf one who naturally belongs to the earth, and obtains the inheritance of heaven arid the title of Lord, only by grace. On the contrary, truth and modeily require tljat we lliould fay ; Jifjs Chriit being of the earth, i«:, by nature, earthly ; but, by the favour of God, he is ihe Lord from heaven. Now, as one cannot be void cf modefty, in this refpeft, without falling into impiety; becaufe a perfon cannot affame fuch honours to himfelf, without infringing on the glory of God ; fo it is evident, that the language of Scripture is not only obfcure and falfe, not only abfurd and ridiculous, but alfo impious; 'if Jefus Qirid be a mere man. — The Arian hypothcii-s ùidll be confidered, in a followiiig chapter. CHAPTER VI, r.viJcnces of the fame truth, arifing from thofc pafLges of Scripture, which cxprofs the: Fre-exift:nce of Jesu« Ciixis r. X HE Scriptures inform us, thatChrid exited before he was conceived in the womb of Mary ; that he v/as before John the Baptilt; that the prophets were infpired by him; that he was before Abraham; that he was in the beginning of all things ; and that he was before all ages. The Divine records afTert, that he *' was in the form of God ;" and, afterwards, " made " himfelf of no reputation, by taking upon him the form " of a fcrvant." He, therefore, muft have exi(ted before his humiliation ; and, confequently, before his Conception in the virgin's womb. — The fame inf^Uiblç «ECT. III. 142 CHAP. Vr, rule of our faith declares, tliat he " was made of the ** feed of David, according to the flefli.'* Certainly, then, in his wonderful Ferfon there mud be a nature di(hn(ft from th.e human; a nature, in refped of which, he was not made of the feed of David. — An unerring writer calls him, "God manifefl in the fielh." Which muftimply, tlir.the who wasthus manifefted, exidedprior to his appearance in a corporal nature. — An evangelill informs us, that the Word, who was in the beginning, and was God, " was made flefh :" which necelTarily fuppofcs that He e>viiled before that flelh to which he was united. Again : Jefis hiirifelf affirms, with a folemn aiTtvera- tlon, a kind of oath ; " Verily, I fay unto you, before *' Abraham was, I am." Either, then, he exilted before that renowned patriarch was born, or his words convey a falfe idea ; that being the natural fignification of the terms, and the firfl imprefTion they make on our minds. — Peter» fpeaking of the ancient prophets, repre- ients them, as '' iearching diligently what, or whatt *' manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was ** in them did fignify, when it teflified before-l.and ■<* the fufferings of Chriit and the glory that fliould *' follow.'* But if Jefus did not exiil in the times of the prophets, they could not fpeak, they could not write, by his Spirit, or by his infpiration. Hence w.e learn, that the Spirit of Chrid was no lefs really granted to them, under the Mafaic œconomy, than he was aftei wards to the apofllcs. He exided, therefore, in the times of the former, as well as in thofe of the latter. For there is no reafon to fuppofe, that the Spirit, by whofe diredion the Hebrev^' feers predi*51:edthe fuiTerings and glory of God's MefTiah, is called the " Spirit of *' Chrill," merely becaufe they prophefied concerning him. The prophets foretold the coming and minifhy of the apoftles ; but is that a fufncient reafon to fay, that the Spirit of the apolUes was in them ? — The 4>çangeli(l John afieris, that Chriil •* was in ihe-begir.- jfECT. îlî. 'I,-J CHAP. VI. f nin^'T ; tint he was v/ith God ;'* and that <* by him ** all dilngs were madt.'* Confecuently, he exifted before time commenced, and before the world was formed. — But, not to multiply quotations, I (hall only once more obferve, that Chrill, when addrelTmg his divine Father, fays; *' And now, O Father, glcrify ** thou me v.'ith thine own felf, with the glory which I *•* had with thee before the world wa?»" And, in another place, wi^h great fokmnity srd with Jin air of Divine authority, he calls hinifclf, " The ^Ipha and ** Omega, the Beginning and the End, the Fird and " the Lafi." Nov/, if we admit the venerable and augud Speaker to talkfenfibly and to mean as he fpeaks, we mufl conclude, that he exKled before the creation, and pofftfTcd a Divine glory prior to the birth of time. To judge of the plain and natural import of thefc pafiages, we need only to conllder the imprefiion they have made on the minds of men, for fo many ages, fnce the Scripture was penned. The Socinians may choofe what arbitrators they pleafe, to determise the direct and natural lignification of the exprefiîons. If they fufpeJl, either the judgment or the impartiality, of the orthodox, will they trud the /Brians; who are not prepofiliTed in favour of the proper Deity of Jefus Chrill, any more than themfelves ? But if they Ihould confider the difciples of Arius as incompetent judges, t^ill they trud the Mahom;tans ; who agree with Socinus- in reje^fling, not only the eternal Divinity, but alfo the pre-cxiftence of Chrifl ? Yet the mufîulmen will teli them, that they fee the fame, in the pafTagcs adduced, that we do ; which obliges them to reject the New Tedament, as being, either entirely fuppoGiitious, or e/Tentially corrupted. And, indeed, it may admit of a query, whether we have not reafon to fufped that this is the fecret pcrfuafion of our adverfciries ; feeing their interpretations of thefe palTages are fo various, and fome of them, fo contradictory. — Is it propable, for inflance, that the natural imnrtfllan of thefe words. SECT. III. 144. CKA1\ VI. " Before Abraham was, I am ;" fuggefled to Sccinus rhat inievprttation of them, uhich he fays coll him fj much labour, and v hich God did not difcover to him till after he had fpent feveral days in prayer ? And yet, it is very obfervable, that his pretended divinely revealed fcnfe of the text, was never adopted by the teachers of his perfuafion. Nor is it any wonder that they fhouli unanimoufly icjecl it. I'or if, when our Lord faid, ** Before Abraham was, I am ;" he only meant, ' I * am, before Abraham was, what the name Aùrcham Magnifies;' that is, The father of many nations ; — in other words. That Chriit exiflcd before the Gentiles became the children of Abraham ; if, I fay, this be the meaning of Jefjs, never any exprefiions were of a mors obfcure, fallacious, and enfnaring kind. — Eut this novel and far fetched interpretation is abfclutcly void of truth. For thefe words, " before Abraham was," do not fignify, * before that eminent patriarch was Abraham ;' but before he who was honoured with that expreilive name had a being; before he was in ilse world. Even as thefe words, * Before Fompey the Great was ;' ào net fignify, * before Pompey v/as furnamcd, or was * really the Great;* but before he extflciL — Befides, the glofs of Socinus renders the afTcrtion of Jtfus abfurd. For what mighty wonder was it, that He fhould exill before the Gentiles became the children of Abraham I The very meaneft perfon, who lived at that time, might have faid the fame of himfelf. But another Socinian v/riter gives a more plaufible interpretation of the text. He fuppofes, * that Jefus * was before Abraham, in the fame fenfe in which he * is called, the Lamb (lain from the foundation of the * world.* In anfwcr to which I obferve, That the two partages are far from being parallel. The hitter is evidently figurative; as appears by the teim JIuin, or facrifced, and by other circumflances of the text. But in the former, every thing leads to the literal fenfe. It is an objed^ion p«rely literal which the Jews make, SECT. III. 145 CHAI'. VL when they fay ; " Thou art not yet {iftv years old.'*^ Nor does the text before us, which fo (trongly denotes the pre-ex.!!!cnce cf Chrifl, exprefs any thing, when ih underdood, but what is contained in great numbers o; others. Befidcs, to render thefe two pafiages perfedlv limiiar, we muftfuppofe it recorded in Scripture ; * Tkat * Jefus, being in the form of a facriilce, was afterwards * pleafed to take upon him the forin of a man — Tha*. * he came from fuffering when he pnpeared in the world * — That he died before Abraham was — That his cruci- * fixion and death were from ancient times — That he * fuffercd from the beginning, or ever the earth was — * And that, jufl before he made his exit on Calvary, he * thus addrefled his Father ; Behold me, ready to * endure the fame fjfFerings \vhich I underwent with * thee before the world was/ But would not fach language be confidered as falfe, abfurd, and ridiculous ? Would not facli a way of fpeaking, concerning Jtfjs Chrid, be detefled ; even though it muft be allowed, that the Holy Spirit does call him,. *' The Lamb i\ùn ** from tlie foundation of the world V Further : In the piflage quoted from the Revcla:iun, there f^ems to be one of thofe tranfpofiLions which a;e common in the Scriptures, and in all forts of aulhcrs ; and if fo, it maybe thus rendered: *' And all that are " upon thî earth (liall worfiiip him., whofe names are not " written, from the foundation cf tlie world, in the book " of hfe of the Lamb flain *." Thefe words, " from tlu- ** foundation of the world ;" being connected with, *' written in the book of life." For eternal predeflina- tion to grace and holintfs, to happinefs and gi-jry, is the thing intended by thofe e:vpre;;;o:i5 ; and that divine purpjfe, refpeifling the chofen of God, is reprefented as the reafon why they (hall not worihip the beait, and perifîi in their iniquity. Such being the general ftnfe of the text, it does not feem at all necelTary to fuj'pofe, * Compare Rev. xvil. 8. N u2cr. iir. 146 CHAP vi; ihat the etcrna] cfacacy of our I.onrs atonement made on the crofs, is intended by thcTe words ; *' Slain from' *' the foundation of the world ;" though we readily allow, that all the ]ieople of God, from the beginnings were pardoned and faved in virtue of it. — And though, according to this tranflation, tlie tQirt) Jlain is tranfpofed ; yet, when it is confdered that Jefus is reprefented, in the Revelation of Jolin, not only as a lamb, but alfo a3 a lamb JIain and Jucr'ificed ; we have no reafon ta wonder that the names of the eleft are faid to be written^ not only " in the bock of the Lambj^ but in that of the Lamb Jlain, In reference, therefore, to thefe words, *' Before " Abraham was, I am ;" our adverfaries muft either fay, that Chrift was befoie Abraham in the purpofe of God J or, that he was befere that illuflrious patriarch became the father of many nations. But thefe interpreta- tions are contemptibly weak, and render the expreiiions abfolutcly unworthy of the Divine Speaker. Is it not very furprifmg, think you, that ChrKl (hould have exifted in the decree of God, before Abraham was born I There is nothing in this which may not be faid of all men, univerfaily, who have lived fince that patriarch's time. Is it not alfo afloniflring, that the Meffiah fhould exift, before the Gentiles were become the children of Abraham ? This was true of all the apoltles, even of judas tlie traitor. And was it to confirm fuch childifh fancies as thefe, that the Wonderful Counfellor and the Wifdom of God, made ufe of that folemn afîeveration, verify? " VEraLY, verily, I fay unto you, before ** Abraham was, I am." But admitting there v/as a diiiiculty in this pafiage, which, to us, appears fo clear, fo exprefs and peremptory ; yet it would be but reafonable to explain it by many other parallel places, which evidently aflert the pre- cxillence of Jefus Chrift. It is an eafy matter for a man of learning, of genius, and of a fruitful invention, to find out a number of fubtile diftindions j but it k not p «ECT. III. f43? CHAP. VII. (o eafy for him to refl fatisfied in them, when they are invented. When they tell me, for inflance, ' That * Chrift was before the prophets, and before Abraham, * in excellence and dignity ; and that we undcriland of "• a priority in exi//ence, what the Scripture fpcaks of a * pre-«minence in dignity ;* my judgment cannot acqui- d'ce in it. For the word of infpiration afTures me repeatedly, that the Lord Redeemer '• is the Firfi and *' the La(L" Here the difHn(51ion is of no avail, but rather tends to embarrafs them. For he is the hrfl, in thatiefi)e(5l in which he ouglit to be the lajl: for tiiey will not fay that he is the laft in dignity. It cannot, therefore, be a priority of excellence that is here meant. — And how comes Ke to be reprefented to us, as " without .ieginning of days ?" We cannot examine all thofe •partages which fpeak of the pre-exiftencc and eternal Divinity of our adored Redeemer, but we fliall confider :a few more of them v/ith particuUr care. CHAPTER FIL The fame Truth evinced, from Phil. ii. 5 — S. A^AUL, in his epiflle to the church of Chrift at Philippi, fays ; '* Let this mind be in you, which *' was alfo in Chrifl Jefus. Who, being in the form •*' of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: ** but made himfelf of no reputation, and took upon *' him the form of a fervant, and was made in the ** likenefs of men. And, being found in fafhion as a *' man, he humbled himfelf, and became obedient unto ** death, even the death of the crofs." — This empha* tical and admirable paffage is thus paraphrafed by .the ,Socinian3, « Who being in ;he form of God ; N 2 -;ncT. III. 148 CHAP, y II, ' commanding the creatures snd controlling the elements * when he wp.s v;pon earth, as if he had been God ; * did not detain and obftinately infill on an equality * with God, as one that is guilty of robbery. But * he renounced this Cfjuality, to make hinifelf of no * reputation ; taking the form of a fervant, in obeying, * though he commanded before, being treated as a flave, * and becoming like ordibary men : and tliis though he * was before in the form of God, by the power with * which he wàs invefled; and, (hewing himfelf obedient, ' he fubmitted to the death of tlie crofs.' — Such is the interpretation of our adverfaries. But, it may be obferved, that thefe expreffions, " In the form of God •* — thougiit it not robbery — made himfelf of no leputa- *' tion — took the form of a fervant'* — fufter manifeft \iolence bv this explanation. The following confidera- tions may ferve to ftiew the inconfiilency there is, between tiie text and the comment. Wlicu we meet with a fingular exprelTion in Scripture, it L3 natural to explain it by fuch as are parallel, or, at leaft, have fome likenefs to it. Our opponents, there- fore, if they confider this phrafe, <* being in the form *' of God," as extraordinary, ftiould compare it with ihufe pafHiges which, in their natural import, fignify nearly the fame thing. Such, for inflance, as the following : *' In the beginning was the Word — The *' Word was God. All things were made by him, and ** without him was not any thing made that was made. •' The true God— God blefled for ever." — Does Paul inform us, that our Lord was "in tlie form of God," before he made himfelf of no reputation and took upon •him the foim of a fei vant ? Conformably to this John declares, that " the Word was in the beginning, and *' that the Word was God." As, according to the one, the Word was Gcd, before he was made fltfh ; fo, according to the other, Chrid was in the form of Gcd, prior to his taking thi form ©f a fervant, or bis iJECT. III. 149 CKAP. VII* appearance in Iiuma.ti nature. Tivas both cxprefs the fame thing, and flinport the fame truth. Whence had our oppofcrs their lignification of the phrafe, *' being in the form of God ?" In what language, human or Divine, do they find it (ignify, to luovh miracles? If the performance of a multitude of miracles were a fufîicient ground of faying, that he who wrought them was in the form of God, Mofes had a claim to the honour ; for he performed aftonifhing works in the air, the earth, and the waters. Nay, the apofUes were • in the form of God ; for they wrought very wonderful miracles, even greater, in fome refpeds, than thofe of •Chrid himfelf, in purfuance of his own promife. — * Jcfus, it may, perhaps, be faid, wrought miracles ia * his own name and by his own power ; but the apodlcs '* performed theiri; in the name and by the power of * of their Lord.' But if Jefus wrought miracles in his own name and by his own power, our oppof-rs mufl cither give up one of their (trongefl: obje^ions againll our fentiments, or contradlc^l themfelves in the moft .palpable manner. For fome of the mofl learned and -ingenious among them fuppofe, that they emoanafs our xaufe exceedingly v/hen they remind us ; ** That Chri(t " came not to do his own will, but the will of him that ** fent him — That the doiflrine he taught was not his *' own, but the Father's — And that he who believes, *' does not believe on Jefus, but on Him that fent him.'* They inUft upon it, that * the Father was the chief ■* author of thofe wonderful works which Jefus did : that ;* the Father was the real author of his refurredlion : ^ that the Father does all things by the Son, and that * the Son can do nothing of himfelf.' If, then, Jefus performed miracles, not in his ov.'n name and by his ov/n power, but in the name and by the povv'er of the Father ; he was no more independent on God, when he wrought them, than the apoftles were when they aftonifhed the world by numbers of miraculous faâc. Confec^ueDtly, if they cannot be faid to have been <' ia N 3 bhCï.ii:» 130 CHAP, viir ** the form of Gcd," becaufe they did nothing but in the name and by the power of their Mader ; neither can Jcfus be fo confideied, becaufe he did nothing but in the name and by the power of his Father. Nor are the Socinians able to fix upon the //«<•, whtn Chrid was *' in the foim of God," without contradic5ting thenifclves, or confronting the Scripture. For, either it was duiing the thirty years which he lived as a private perfon j or after he appeared in a public charader, between the time of his baptifm and that of his death. Not (he former ; becaufe in all that fpace of time we do not find that he wrought any miracles. Nor can it be the Utter ; for if it were, Ix iMiifl: have afTumed the form of God at that very time when he began mod evidently to hu?nbk himfelf ; even VvlKn he was tempted of the devil, and began to fjffet all the inconveniences of life, and all the outrage erf peifccutioR. Bat is it polTibie, without the mod glaring improptiety and the greatcd abfurdity, to call a Ihte of extreme poverty, and diame, and affli-ftion, a ** being <' in the form cf God ?" — The miracles v/hich Jefus vrought, were after he humbled himfelf; after he was laid in a manger — after he efcaped tiie fury of a tyrant, thirding for his blood — and after he returned from his exile in Egypt. So that if he was " in the form of <'• God," becaufe he controlled the courfe of nature and cxercifed dominion over the creatures, in the wonderful miracles which he performed; it muft necedarily follow, that he was not in that Divine form till after he began to humble himfelf and to make himfelf of no reputation ; which is a direct: contradiftion of the facred text. Again : To underdand thefe words, " Being in the ♦» form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal *' with God," in the fenfe of our adverfaries, is inconfident with the occafion of them and the fcope of the place. Paul, it is m?.nifed, mentions the condudl -of Jefus Chrid, as a wonderful, adonidiing, unparalleled «iudaF.ce of cçndiîfccufiOD, with a view to eûfçrce his €ECT. m. 151 CHAP. vri. exhortations to humility. But, if jtfus be a mere man, or only an exalted creature, it is no woxnder that he * did not obflinately infifl,' that he did not fo much as thirJ, * on an equality with God :' for, in fo doing, he would have been guilty of Luciferiun pride, and of •the moft impious robbery. By confidering thcfe tv/o claufes, in their proper «onnedlion, " bcinî: in the foim of God — he thought it •" not robbery to be equal with God ;" we have a further proof of tiie truth for which we contend. For it fs «evident, that our Lord's claim of *' (qualify with God," ■Is here founded, by the apoftle, on his '^ exidi ng in the *^form of God;'* and not on his performing of any ■works whatever. — ^Nor ought the two terms vzctp-vcji" and KuCur, which (land oppofcd in the pafTarc, to be overlooked. It is very obfervablc, that tlie apoflie ufes ^ho. former t v./hen ho fpeaks of the *' form of God;" Hiferting, that Jcfus exjfied in that Divine form ; plainly lignifying, that it was not an accidental and tranficnt .thing, but a property belonging to his glorious Pcrfon, 2.nd theiefore permanent. But when he fpeaks of ihe oppofite form, he employs the latter of thofe cxpreflions, and fays, he received it ; evidently denoting, that it was not effential, but foreign and accidental to him. For he who receives. "à form, is not fuppofed to have had it always ; nor is it confidered as efiential to him. — Befides, if Jefus be a mere creature, he never was, nor ever can 'be, ftri-frly fpeaking, in any form but that of a fervanty in refpev5t of the eternal Sovereign. But as the Holy Spirit, fpeaking in the Scripture, is his own bell interpreter, it is proper to compare this paff.ige with otiiers, in order to fee its genuine raeaninfr. When the apoflle fpeaks of Jefus Chrifl, as " being in " the form of God," as being ** equal with God ;" and yet informs us, that he " took upon him the form of a *' fervant, and made himfelf of no reputation;" we ^cannot but confider ihe Lord Redeemer; as exiflin^ iii SECT, nu 152 CHAP. VU. two very different Jiitis: a ftate of the fublimefl glory preceding, and a (late of the deepefl: humihaiion follow- ing. So, when we advert to timt faying, " He was ♦* made of the feed of David according to the fleHi ;'* we. have the idea of two natures in our Divine Saviour, One, in refped of which, he is David's oifspring ; the other, fuch as conftitutes him David's Lord. One, the exigence of which commenced at his conception ; the other, without beginning and unchangeable. — Thefe two paffages, it is evident, are perfe<5>Iy correfpondent. For if Jefus exided before. he v^as made of the feed of David, according to the fiefli; it mud have been either in the form of man, or in the form of God. Not the formery for then he muft have exifted in fiefh, prior to his being made of the feed of David, according to the fielh ; which is abfurd and contrary to the teftimony of the Holy Ghofl:. It murt, confequently, be the lutter; that i$, before his incarnation he exified in the form of God» .:;nd in that only. This will appear in a flronger light, if we confider the following paiTage ; " God was manifeft in the fiefh." Chrilt exified before he was in the fiefli. For though he was made of the feed of David, yet not abfolutely, but " according to the fleOi." Chrift was Goi) ; for God was manifeft in that flefh wliich was made of the .feed of David. — By comparing this and the two pre- ceding palfages together, it appears, That Jefus Chrift cxiRed in the form of God, that he was God ; and might, confequently, be confidered as equal with the Father before that flcfli which was made of the feed of David, and in which God was manifefled, had a being. Once more : He who is the true and faithful Witnefs afTerts, concerning himfelf; " I came forth from the *' Father, and am come into the world ; again, I leave ** the world and go to the Father." Before our Lord came into the world, he was not made of the {ted q£ JDavid ; was not flefh, nor manifelted in the fiefli ; nor was he in the form.of.afervaiit. No ^ cQufideredJAJjis SECT. m. 153 CHAP. Vllî, firfl flate, he was the Son, the onl^' Son. of the Father; that Divine Perfon wlio, exiting in the form of God, •and being God, was to be manifelted in the fiefh ; was to be the wonderful I mm an u el. CHAPTER VI IL The f^me truth ccnfirn^ed and il'.iiftrated, from Jr.hn i. i — 14. The Sociniaa interpretation of this paiTaee conûdcred an4 czpofed. J HE beginninrr of the Gofpel according t© the evangeHft John, would be quite unintelHgible, were we to deny the pre-cxiflence and eternal Divinity of Jefus Chrilt. The following expreflions, for inftance ; ** In the beginning was the Word — The Word was ** with God — The Word was God — All things were "** made by him — The Word was made flefh — Thç ^* world was made by him'' — Thefe expreflîons, T fay, taken in any other view, are no better, £re no other, than incomprchenfible nonfenfc : and men, who are not obliged to uriderfland thatv/hich is in itfelf unintelligibie, cannot be culpable for not difcovering a fenfe in them, -which is contrary to the natural fignification of the terms, •' In tiie beginning was "the Word." Our expofitioa has nothing obfcure, nothing perplexed in it; but that, of our opponents is far-fetched and jejune, is forced and unnatural. They infift upon it, that by ** the beginning," the commencement of the gofpel-difpenfation is intended. But fo to interpret the phrafe, is to retrain a general expreflion to a particular and uncommon fenfe, without the lead warrant from the circumflances and fcope o( the place, and is nothing (liort of offering violence tfc •tJîe text. Itvfaanot be fuppofed, with theleall fhaivw SECT. III. 154 CHAP. VIII, of reafon, that a particular beginning is meant, becaufc nothing precedes it, nothing follows it, fo to determine the fenfe ; or which gives the lead intimation that the exprellion ought to be underflood in a fignification different from that which it ufaally has. For thefe words begin the gofpsl, and are repeated by the evangelift after- wards, without giving any notice of their being ufcd in a particular fenfe. To imagine that a mental refervation may determine general expreiTions to a particular mean- ing, is a great miftake. Any one, writing the hirtory of Auguftus, v/ould be very impertinent if he (hould fay; * In the beginning was AuguRus ;' meaning, that he lived from the time of Julius Cefar. Or, if a man were to write the hiftory of Mcfes, and the furprifing things which the God of Ifrael wrought by his niiniflry, and ihouW introduce the wonderful narrative thus ; * In the * beginning was Mofes ;' meaning, he was from the time that God began to deliver the feed of Jacob from Egyptian bondage. For thefe mental explanations would not prevent the language from being contrary to good fènfe, becaufe it would be unintelligible. If theevangelifl'snKaning had been what they fuppofe^ le might h?/;t explained himfelf by laying, ' jeUis Chrifl: * lived from the beginning of the gofpel.' Yet even then his exprelnons v/ovJd not have been f:te from obfcu- rity: becaufe we Ihould have been at a lofs to know, from vhat period, or from what event, this begh:n'mg of the gofpel was to be dated. For if you underfianil the firfi glad tidings of the great falvaticn, which was to be accomplilhed by Jefus Chrifl:, it is evident, on the principles of cur opponents, that He did not then exift ; the prophets having publiihed the fulvation of God long before the Meffiah s conception. If, by this beginning, you underftand the time when the prophetic oracles began to be fulfilled ; then, I demand, why it is not dated from the time of Gabriel's appearancetoZacharias, or to Mary ? Or from the time that the father of John the Baptilt, being ^Upd with the Holy Spirit, defcriUd SECT. ni. 155 CHAP. viir. the honourable and important work of his new-born fon^ and foretold the immediate appearance of Chrifl: ? Or from the day that Simeon ur.tered his comprehenfive prophecy, with the infant Saviour in his arms? To that remarkable charader, the World, our adverfaries give fcveral figniiications ; u-hich appear to be invented only out of ncccllity to defend their caufe. * It includes, fay they, a metaphor, or a metonymy.' — Bat if they dealt ingenuoufly, they would ftx either upon the one, or the other ; for one figure would be fufficicnt to anfwer the purpofe. But what would fuffice, irv itfelf, does not fatisfy our opponents ; and the millruft they have of the one, makes them have recourfe to the other. For, we may venture to fay, it is not the fenfs of Scripture they give us, but their own miftakes, which they feem determined to defend. This appears from their comment on the following claufe : '* The Word was with God.'* For if it were lawful to take thefe expreflions in a fignilication which is not natural to them, feveral fenfes might be found equally proper with that which they have palmed upon them. Would thefe terms, *' The Word was with ** God," bear to be interpreted thus, * The Word * was known of God only;' why might we not infift upon it, that their more natural fignification is, * The * Word was hid in heaven ;* or, * The Word was * beloved of God ;' or, * The Word only knew the * counfei of God V Thefe are more probable fignifica- tions of the text, and yet they fix upon this, * The * Word was known of God only;' or, according to others, * He was appointed of God to his office.' In much the fame aukvL-'ard and unwarrantable manner they interpret t}>e following remarkable and emphatical affertion ; " The Word was God." Thfrfon. If we fliould fay, for inltance, * The Liw * was with God ;' and, ' Mofes was with God ;' the two propofitions mu(l be underltood in a very different fenfe. " The Word was God,'* is, if you will beiieve our adverfaries, another figurative phrafe ; but you will not be able to find an example of it in Scripture. They pretend, thatjefas is called God, becaufe he is Jehovah's reprefentative. But though various eminent perfons have, lx\ fome rerpe(n:s, reprefented the eternal Sovereign ; yet we do not find that either of them was ever called God, abfoluiely j or without fome intimation, that he was fo denominated only in a figurative fenfe. It is, indeed, iaid, *' Ye are Godc," in the plural ; but it was never .faid of any particular perfon, * He was God.^ — The.y will have it that our gracious Redeemer is called God^ becaufe his miniftry was entirely divine. But fo was that of the apoftles. They revealed a bleifed immor- tality, and VvTOught very wonderful works, as well as their Lord ; fo that, on this principle, they might haye •claimed the glory of that Divine charafler as well as he. Yet we do not read that any of the apollles were fo called ; but we find, on the contrary, that they detefted the condu(5t of the people at Lyfira, who gave them that name. — * But there is a very material difference * between Jefus and his apofiles. He was the Mafler, ' they were the fcrvants.' True: but though the apolHes v/ere fervants, in ref[>e^ of Chri(l ; yet Chrilt, our adverfaries muft allow, is equally a fervant, in regard to God. If, then, an apoflle could nut lawfully call himfelf Lord, out of reverence for Jefus Chriff that .name being confecrated to him ; neither could JefiS aiTume the name. God, becaufe that facred a|.pel]ation Jiad been long appropriated to the Supreme Being Nor can they, by any example, jufiify that reitriclT^ion with which they underftand the following woids ; " All »^*, things were made by him, and v/iihouthim was not. SECT. îi:. 165 CHAT. IX, ** any thing made that was mads." For the Cicrcl Writer appears to have intended, to exprel's himfelf as generally as he polllbly could. He, therefore, is not latisfied with faying, " All things were made by him ;" bat he repeats the important truth, in a flill more forcible manner, by adding, " Without him was not any thing *' made that was made.'* — ' The matter in hand, Çi/ • they, limits the exprelTions.' But this afTcrtion is groundlefs. Both the foregoing and the following words fnggeft the contrary ; unlefs we renounce the natural impreffion of the terms. In the preceding context he fays, " In the beginning was the Word ;" which is a general way of fpcaking, and leads us to confider ths words, " All things were made," in a fenfe equally general. In a fubfequent veifc he fays, " The worLi *' was made by him ;" where he again fpeaks in a general Way, and teaches us to conclude, that " all things," are to be underllood of all things entirely ; all, without exception. Their interpretation of this claufe, " The world wai " made by him," is equally void of truth. For whether, by tlie term ivorld. they underlland the world to come ; or whether they fuppofe the meaning to be, that the world was made ours by Jefas Chrilt ; in either cafii they are utterly at a lofs for a finiilar inllance in the Holy Scripture. They, indeed, produce parages to fliew that the tuorUf fomeiimes figniiies /he ivorld tn come; but the examples alleged are not to the purpofe. They pretend that in this paffage, *' When he bringeth *' his Firft-begotten into the world," that the term 'u.'orlJ fignifies eternal hfe. But the original phrafc ought not to be rendered, the luorlJ ; but t/je earth, or the habitable part of the world ; for it is t/iv ImovfjLiry.v, not rlï yjjjuov. Befides, by what arguments will they prove that this habitable earth, mc;ins heaven, or a ftate of blifs to come ? — Nor is that other pafTage, adduced by then** j where mention is made of " the world to * H;b. ii. Ç. SECT. lîî. 166 CHAP, IX. *' come," fuilîcient for their purpofe. For, whatever be tlie meaning of it, there is a manifeft difference between thofe exprefiîons, and this generd phrafe, the world ; the latter being in queftion, and not the former. The two phr?.fes are far from being equivalent. Nothing would be more abfurd than to fuppofe, that the ivorld^ fignifies the nvorld to come^ wherever the exprcfiions are ufed, becaufe the latter phrafe is once or twice contained ÎD the epiftle to the Hebrews.— Neither is the following pafTage any more to their purpofe. *' When he cometh •* into the world he faith, Sacrifice and offering thou *♦ wouldelt not." For the ivorld^ here intended, mufl necefllvrily be underflood of that which we inhabit, and not of the heavenly (late. Nay, the term wcr/J is fo far from being generally ufed for heaven^ in the Scrip- tures, that the two expreffions are frequently oppofed. To this purpofe are the words of our Lord i " I came *' forth from the Father, and am come into the world ; ** again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." Butin what fenfe was this world made by Jcfus Chrifl ? * The world, that is, the world to come, was made by * him, becaufe, through him it becomes ourj ; or, by hira * we have an hope to cbtain it, and (hall certainly, in the ■* end, enjoy it.' But v.'hat apon:le, what prophet, what vritsr of common fenfe and common hone(ty, ever exprefled himfelf in fuch an aukward, unintelligible and ridiculous manner, as that in which the evangeli(t fpeaks, according to this interpretation ? — If you infift upon it, that the fenfe which they afnx to tlie term "dorldy is forced and unnatural, and that it fjgnifies the heavens and the earth with all their inhabitants ; then they endeavour to perfuade you, that ' the word madcy here * fignifies reneivcd.' The meaning, therefore, of the pa(fage is, * The world was rene^ived by Jefus CHrifL' To give this interpretation an air of probability, they produce various paffages of Scripture ; bat the only one that appears at all to the purpofe, is the following^: '** We are his vvorkmand'.ip, created in Chrid Jefus uat0 g£CT. III. Î'J/ CMAr. ÎX, " good works." Here, it is manifeft, that tlie term r/r- ated is limited to a particular fenfe, and Ggnifics rcneiu- td; as aj)pcars from the following claufe, *' unto good *' works." Had the evangeliil faid, The world was made, or created by him, in righteoufnefs, or to good works, or to be a new creature ; the words, k muft be conFelTed, wo'uld have required the fenfe of our adverfaries. But as he fays nothing like it, all the rules of found inter- pretation require, that we fliould take the expreflions in their obvious and natural fignification. — If Paul in the pafiage produced, had only fa.id, " We are created by *' Jeius Chrilt /' and if, notwithrtanding he had meant the fime as is now exprcficd ; he would have ufcd fuch an obfcure and ambiguous way of fpeaking, that wc fliould have hardly cone at his meaning; or, mod probably, have attributed a fenfe to his words which he did not intend. So if John fays, '* The world was ** made by Jefus Chrilt," after having told us, that " all things were made by him," and that " without ** him nothing was made that was made ;'* and if he fay it only to inform u?, that our Lord introduced an alteration into the world by hisgofpel ; we have reafon to complain of great obfcurity in his language, and mud: either confider his afTertion as groundlefs, or embrace a fenfe of the terms quite contrary to their natural fignifi- cation. Once more : It was never faid of any man that appeared in the world, *' He was made flefli ;" fuch a way of fpeaking being abfurd. Yet, if we believe our opponents, this is the meaning of, *' The Word was ♦* made âefh.'* That is, * Jefus a mere man, came * into the world.' A goodly way of fpeaking for an infpired writer to ufe i But was it ever faid. The king was made fieih — The emperor was made ilefh ? Was it ever faid, by the Ho' y Spirit, Such a prophet, or fuch an apofUe, was made flcfn ? — Nor does it avail the caufe to render the text, •' Ke was fie Hi." For fjch a v.ay FECT. m. l68 CHAP. IX, cf fpeaking is not more proper, and is equally unknown to both human and Divine language. It follows, then, that all thefe expreflions in the beginning of John's evangelical hiftory, are without example, if undtriiood according to the Socinian comment. But, fuppoHng it could be proved that each cf tliem was ufcd in Scripture, once or twice, in the fenfc of our advcrfaries ; yet fo many fingular forms of fpeech united, would be entirely without example, and contrary to all rcafon. For though a fingle exprefiion, when ufed in an uncommon, or even an unnatural fenfe, may pafs, in a croud of other expreiTions that are clear and pertinent, by which it may be anderdood ; yet if a writer ufe ten or a dozen of them, in the ccmpafs of a few periods, he will render his language obfcure and abfurd, and himfelf contemptible. — It is unreafonablç to fuppofe, that the general term, beginning, (hould be here taken, contrary to all afe, for the commencement of the gofpel. But if you iliould find an example of its being ulcd in the fenfc they atnx to it, among a multitude of ir.nances to the contrary; it does not, it cannot follow from thence, that it mufl be underlîood in fuch a limited and particular figniiication here ; becaufe all the ci re I.: m ft an ce s of the dilcourfe lead us to confider it in a general (enfe, as the moft natural. But when you offer this violence to that exprciTion, you cannot do fo ■to eight or ten more which immediately follow, without impeaching the wifdom, or the goodnefs, of the Spirit of God ; as if he intended, by connecîling fo many expreflions, which are all to be taken in a particular fenfe and contrary to their natural ufe, to lead us into error. Our oppofers find their account in confidering each expreiTion by itfelf ; becaufe it is pofRble, by great application, to imagine fome fenfes that are pretty near thofe which they aifix to the words of Scripture. But >^hen they are obliged to unite all their defigns and explanations together, tiiey make an abfurd and ridiculous appearan-ce. SECT. lir. 169 CHA?. IX. Nor would it help their caufe to fugged a doubt concerning the Divine authcnticiiy of the beginning of John's evangelical hiftory. For, in anfwcr to fach aa infinuation, wc need only obferve; That the languagt of this evangslift exprefTes nothing, relating to thu perfonal dignity, glory, and works of Jefu?, but wh.it is taught us by other apoftles. In the writings of Paul, for inltance, we have the following afTcrtions concerning Jefus Chrilt. *' Being in the for.-n of God, he though: " it not robbery to be equal with God — He kid the " foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works ** of his hands — By him were all things created, vifible " and invifible — All things were created by him and for " him — God was manifell in the f.efh" — wi:h many other fimihir paffagcs. Equally unavailing would it be for themto philofophize on the manner hoiu the writings of the evangelifls are the •word of God. For whether it be by infpiration of fuggeftion, or whether by way of fjperintendency, or by both united, that God influenced the minds, and tongues, and pens of thofe infallible teachers ; yet it cannot be fuppofed that they were baptized with the Holy Spiri:, and received miraculous gifts, only to talk as they do, if Jefus Chrift be a mere creature. For, only admitting that they pofTefled a moderate fhare of common ft-nle, and were honefl and good m.en, though entirely deititute of extraordinary gifts ; they could not but take particular care that they gave no occaGon to impiety and idolatry, by afcribing the names, properties, and glories of the true God to a mere creature. Should it be faid, * Thefe grand expreflions, concern- • ing Jefus Chrift, are no other than the fl )urinies of * rhetoric and the elevated flights of fancy;* t anfwer. We may be ioon convinced of the contiary, by a general refle^îîion on the charai5Ver of thofe facred books, which conftitute the canon of the Scripture. Not a (ingle expreflion can be found in any of them, to the prejudice of God's glory. No impious meuphor, no hyperbole P :iGT. lii. 170 CKAr>. IX. finding to blnfulitini)', nor any unbecoming comparifon <..f nian with Gud, is there to be found. The languaga is humble, niodefi, rehgious. It is leally furprifing that, though other authors can hardly write a few pages raihout injuring the glory of God, this long feries of holy teachers difcover, in a*l their words and ideas, that lefped which is due to the Supreme Being. I'hrs, as allmu'l confefs, is one of thofe internal charaders by which the Bible is known to be the Book of God. Nor can it be objeded, with any greater appearance of rcufun, * That the idea of the Wor», taken for the * Son of God, who is God himfelf, being new and * extraordinary ; we are obliged to feek for new and * fingular fenfes in the paiTage.'' For, as before obferved, one fingular exprcilion and new idea, furrounded with, other exprefùons and ideas, that are common and plain, cannot create any very great difficulty ; and all. the reft of the paragraph is compofed of terms and thoughts that are neither uncommon nor obfcure, while unembarraffed with forced and unnatural interpretations. Befides, it is well knovvn that the ancient Hebrews ufed ihefe feveral phrafes, The face of God ; the majelly of God ; the gloiy of God ; and the Word of God, as exprefiive of the fame idea. The Chaldee Paraphrafe ufes them as fynonymous expreffio-ns. And Rabbi Jonathan rende» s thefe words, *' The Lord faid unto *' my Lord ;" by, * The Lord faid unto his Word.' In fnort, it is pLin that thefe words, with which the gofpel according to John is introduced, " Jn the begin- *' ning was the Word," carry in them a manifefl; allufion to the beginning of Gcnefis : this evangelift beginning the hillory of Jefus Chrilt, with the firlt works of the Son» of God ; giving us to underftand, that he is the firfl Caufe of all things, and that before the creation he was with God ; while the other evangelifh begin their jnterefting narratives with his manifellation in the flelh. The beloved dijciple informs us, that the Word, by \;hom the world was created, was not a mere found, 1 «EC T. ni. 171 CHAP. IK. Hkc the word of man ; but a Divine perfon, who exited "with God, and was God ; and exprefsly tells us, ti at this Perfon is Jesus Christ. Thefe conliderations are fufHcient to remove the doubt, which fome fuggeft, about the genuinenefs of the beginning of this gofpel : as if it favoured more of the •wild fpecvilatians of the Gno(Hcs, than of revealed truth. For it appears from hence, that the ideas are not fo new and (trange as they imagine. — Befides, to fuppofe that Cerltithus compofcd, either the beginning of this gofpel, or the Revelation^ is an ungrounded furmife. Not the former; for it ought not to be detached from the reft, nor from John's epiltles, nor from his Apocalypfe; in which thefe phrafes, the Word; the IVord of God; and Jefus Chrill, the true God, are ufed repeatedly Not, the latter; for Cerinthus would never think it advifabic •to forge and publifh books under the name of his avowed oppofer ; nor would the churches of A fia have received -the abfurd imaginations of tliat heretic, for the gofpel of John — Ncr can any two things be more incompatible, than the doclrines of the evangelill, and the dogmas of that herefiarch. Cerinthus believed, that angels created the world ; that a fallen angel gave the law ; and than Jefus was really the fon of Jofeph. He taught, than 7(/ii^ was a man, and 67jr//? the power of God ; which power came upon him at his baptifm, and returned to heaven at hh death. He affirmed, ih.'.t Jefus fuffcred the inconveniences of life, and the violence of perfecr- tion ; but that C h riji wrought flupendous miracles, and and was fuperior to all oppofition — That Chriji was impaffible, though Jefus futfered ; and that Chri/I fell upon the apoftles, at the feafl of Pentecofl. I pafs over the crimes which he authorized, and the extravagant fubordination of ^ons ; which were common to him with other Gnoftics. Nov/ thefe are fach notions as have not the leail countenance in the gofpel according to John. Why, then, thefe unreafonable doubts and reillef? inquiries? If the paragraph under confideratioQ F 2 ^iZCT. III. 172 CHAP. X, îîiuft be fufpected of being compofea by a Gnoftic, bccaufe it eitabliflics the pre-cxiftence and Divinity of Jcfus Chrifl ; wc may, for the fame reafon, fufpecl the whole New Tertament to be the work of thofe heretics, and rejed it all at once. CHAPTER X, The Arian hypothefis equally indefenfibic, V/N a fjperficial furvey of the Arian fyrtem, it feems much more plaufible than that of Socinus ; f)ccaufe it preferves entire the pre-exiflence of Jcfus Chrirt, which is a doctrine mort exprefsly and repeatedly :-)entioned in the New Tedament: and, indeed, were we to fiop here, the former would undoubtedly have the advantage. But when we more clofely confider the r.ibjeft we find, that the Socinian hypothefis is free from feveral capital difficulties which attend that of the Arians, thofe ancient enemies to the caufe of truth and ihe Divinity of Jefus Chrift. This will appear if the fullowing things be confidered. The term God, mult neceflarily be underflood, either as a name of office^ or of nature ; as denoting externa! dualities and trufls, or intr'wfic excellence and ejfential perfe(5tions. The Arians, therefore, cannot defend themfelves, when they are urged with the confideration of the name, God, which is given to Jefus Chrift, by faying ; ' It is a name of office, and Chrift only bears * it as an ambafTador of the Mo(i High ;* which is the evafion of the Socinians. For as the difciples of Arius confefs, that Chrifl: exifled, not only before his appear- ance in the world, but alfo before the creation ; they cannot deny but he was, in fome fenfc, God, before the «TECT. îïi. 473 CHAP. X. 'formation of the unlverfe. Thofe pa/Higes of Scripture, which they explain of his prc-exidence, are very cxprcfs, in this refpect. " In the beginning was the Word, and *' and the Word was with God, and the Word was " God." But if they allow, that the Word was luhh God^ in the beginning; and tliat he 'ujas Hod^ before the formation of the world ; they ought alfo to grant, that he was '• in the form of God ;" that he is ** the ** true God ; the mighty God ; the great God ; Gcd ** bleffed fur ever/' 'For there is no more reafon 10 allow the one, than there is to acknowledge the other. But, as they deny this confequence, they will permit me to a(k. How the names and praifes, which are appropriated to the Great Supreme, can belong to Chrifl in his fird cilate ; in which he neither repreJentcdGod^ nor acïed in his name, nor was his ambnjfador to n:en ? For if he were a mere creature, however exalted ar»d glorious, it could not be lav/ful to exprefs his effence and attributes by the name, God. Can it be faid, '^vithout impiety, of the mo(l excellent creature, *' He .** exills in the form of God, and thinks it not robbery ** to be equal with God ;'* Though the Logos, in his pre-exiilent (tate, poiTe/Ted a Divine glory, in comparifon soUh us; can we, on the Arian hypothecs, attribute a Divine glory to him, when confidered as being ;fHcuI:ies which our adverfdiici H .id, in the pafTages cjntroveited between them and us. Tor the tiueititm is not about anyobfcurity in the words of the Holy Spirit, as explained according to cur fentiments ; but as inter- preted according to thtirs. And they jTetend, tha: their hypothefis is quite free from the cloi.dy and cmbarraffing Lbtilties of the fchools ; \et, it is en thtir principles that thefe pafTages are fo exceedingly cifHcuh ;.nd cbf:ure. This, then, is an obfcurity which has rone cf thcfe caufes that are common to difiicult pafTages cfScripiute ; v.hich is very furprifing. But this lurprife will ii^icriaf::, vhen i: is confidered, that as the obfcurity has rot i's c.'.ufe in us, nor can be reafonably afcribed to us, it rnu(t be attributed to God. But if He be the only caufe, it will be impoHible for us to account for it, w iih honour to 1 is chara-^er. For Lis dtfign in it could rot be to glorify himfelf. Becaufe an obfcurity in hi: Revelation, v.hich leads us tobelieve that J-^fus, a mere man, ii God ; tliat he created the world ; and is invoiced \^ itii the ciTential glories of the Supreme Being, cannot j oinbly tend to the honour of God. — Nor could his defign be to aiuminale the minds of men. For how fhculd an obfcu- rity enlighten the mind ? Befidcs, was there ro ether way of communicating heavenly light, v. ithout cxpofing mankind to the danger of fo baneful an error I — Nor was it to try our faith. For though the greatnefs of the objev5ls revealed in the Bible, and the contrariety which is in them to our natural prejudices, may ferve to^xercifc our faith ; yet it does no: appear that ambiguous and obfcure exprelTions, if employed to rcpref^nt thofe objecls, could anfwer any fuch purpofc. And though the Holy Spirit had intended to pu l our faith to the tiial ; he certainly would have been very far from doing it in fuch a way^ as had a natural tendency to injure the glory of God End hazard our falraiion, by lageefting fuch ^LCT. III. l'^2 CI-IAF. XÏ. ideas as cpcrcl a door to blafphcn-:}' and idolatry. If, not with (landing, the Spirit of infjiiration really deligned, that the padrigcs i.i ruefiion (liouid be undeiltood in ihe fenfe of our adverfaries, he has been greatly difappointed ; fjr there h.ave been comparatively few that have fo ronfidered them, or \vhof= faith l;.is been {o exercifcd by them. The hypothefis oT our opponents not or.ly renders the langu-'ge of Scripture cblcure, but alfo falfr and i'ccet'.fuL A difcourii is generally confidered as falf?, v'hen thofe ideas which common conf^^nt and cuflom ] ave affixed to the terms of which it confilb, are not found to be true; even thojgli the fpeaker, or wri;er, faould annex, mentally, a lignification to «ach word, fj as to render the v. hole confitfent wiih fad. For equivocations and latent r^fervation? are a fpecies of Ives; though, in the fenfe cf thofe that make them, they may be rcj.1 truths. — Now it is dcmonflrable, that the fentimcn^s of our oppof«:rs rend'^r the language of Scripture dv^ceitful. For if it be lawful to give the fàcred Records a fenfe that is remote fn)m the ordinary l-crnili cation of the terms which arc ufed, there is no opinion fo ahfurd, no dodrine fo mcnflrous, but may be eafiiy e'lab'iilicd by the Bible. Admi'tlng t'ie lawfulnefs of foch a procedure, it would be no hard matter fur me prove, that the true God had no hand in the work of creation ; nay, that there is no mention of any fuch thing in the ancient oracles. Even fjch a feniiment, horrid as it is, I could maintain, without offering greater violence to the Scrip- tures of the Old TcfUment, than our adverfaries do to thofe of the New.— I would aflert, that he who created the heavens and the e:;rrh was an angcly the minifter of Jehovah ; one who is not God, by nature, but merely by office. If reminded of the names given him io Scripture ; 1 would anfver with the Socinians, Fie bears .them only as be is the minider and reprefentative of the Mod High. The epithet ahm^hty^ which is SECT. III. 103 ciiAi-. x:. fometimes given him, would not much embarrafs me. I lliouli fay, this angel does ail things in cur lo;vcr world, by the will iA" the Gic«t Supic.Tje, who has committed the admiiUilration of its government to hin^ ; hut there are other worlds, aJ hifiiuiuiny which do no:, in the leall, come under his control. And though he is called " the fearcher of hearts;'' yet he bears thj augufl charader, only becaufe the Ivîolt High God reveals to him every thing that pafTes in the foul. Ho is, indeed, faid to have *' cieated all things ;" but iheie woids are to be underliood with great hmitatlon : not of all things without exception ; but only of fuch .ts lefpeâ: us, or belong to this vifiblc world. He was, i confefs, ivorjlvppedi and worihip hits been confidertd as an honour peculiar to the true God : but ihcre is a very impo; t:un diiHncHon which is here uj Le ni«id<., between Jupreme ^nôi j'uôor J nate worihip. And ihouid it be faid, This dependence of the angel, who is called God, upon the Supreme Being, is no where mentioned in Scripture ; I ihould foon produce inflances to the contrary. As for example ; ** The Lord rained upon Sodom — brimltone and fire, from the Lord." And ihofe words to Abraham, fooken bv him who is called' GciD ; " Now I know that thou fearelt God.'* And fo whi:n the God of Ifrael is reprtfented, as the greatelt •' among the gods ;" may wc not coniider him as the greatcll among the angels, to whom the Infinite Supreme has committed the government of ftveral parts of the univerfe ? which would imj)Iy, that the God of Ifrael is not the Supreme God. in vain would it he objeckd. That the God oi Ifrael is the creator of heaven and earth ; and that the d.t\ of creating fjpj)ofes an infinite power, which cannot belong to any buc the Mofl High, For our adverfaries furnilh me with a foluiion of this dilH:ulty, by ihewing that the t^rm crtavit does n»^L always fignify to produce o::t cf noih':r.^; ; but merely to produce ; and fometimes, to frfiion^ to ilifpoj'e. — If i: ■«'CTC cbjce'lcd, Thj God of Ifratl ipcak^as ih: true ÇL2 ^LCT, 111. I?4 Cll.\i\ XI, God when he fays, " I will not give my glory to '* another ;" it mij^ht be anfweieil, The angel who h?.s received the government of this world, has a glory peculisr to hinifelf, excluhve of other intelligences, and poJlefTts this glory in oppolition to idols, which are vanity. — le might be further fuppofed, that the true God has granted him the power of communicating to another, fo much of his empire as he pleafes ; and, therefore, he could impait it to Jefus Chriit, as the t;ue God did to him. — Now Ï leave our adverfarits to judge, whether it would be eafy for them to force me in thefe entrenchmtnts, which they have prepared ; and to confider, of what va(l importance it is, never to deprive the terms of Scripture of their natural (ignifica- tion. Becaufe if we once take the liberty of affixing new ideas, to the words God^ nnorJJApy and fuch like expreilions, we deilroy all certainty in the anology of faiih and in the facred Scripture, and abandon ourfclvts to peipetual fcepticifm. As Jehovah is the God of truth, it cannot be fuppofed, without fliocking impiety, ihat he ever defigned to betray us into error, by fpeaking to us in ambiguous itnd deceitful language. If, then, fuch a procedure would be cor:fidercd as contrary to his eternal truth ; it is no lels inconfiflent wiih his wifdom, nor lefs den gatory to the dignity of his Revelation, to fpeak in language that is abfurd and ridiculous. Yet fuch is the language of tlie Bible, in many places, if undcrflood according to the princij)les of our ojjpofers. What expi cillons, for initance, can be more ridiculous than thcfe, if Chii'l be a mere man, honoured with the name. Goo, on account of his miniflry ? " He was " made of the feed of David, accoiding to the ilefli V* What is the meaning of the ievm,J^,jlP If you undei- lland it, as oppofed to fpirit, the fcnfe of the paflage will be, Ke was made of the feed of David, according to the èody; not according to the foul. A goodly way of fpcakirj, this, for Ga-mali^rs pupil, for ChrUPs I SECT. Hi. IC$5 CHAl'. XK apoflle to ufe ! Alexander had a body and a foul ; yet all would unite in ])rGnouncin CHAPTER I, "if Jesus Cerist be not of the frtme elTence with his Father, the Prophets, \\ho fpake oï him, did not for^'fec things 2» they werj to come to pafs. jr\S the religion of Jcfus depends on the -teflimony of the prophets, and on that of the apoflles, united ; it is abfoluteiy neceflary, for the confirmation of our faith, that thefe teftiinonies fhould agree and mutually fupport each other. An hypotheiis, therefore, v;hich deflroys that agreement which ought to fubfift between thepenmen of the Old, andthe writers of the New Tellament, faps the foundations of ChrilHanity. Such is the fyflem of thofe who maintain, that Jefus Chrift: is a mere creature. For if that fentimcnt be true, the Spirit, by whofe infpiration the prophets wrote, neither foretold, nor forefaw things as they were to come to pafs iinder the gofpel-difpenfation ; nor did that Spirit, ^^'hom the apoftles received and by whofe diredlion they fpake, underhand the oracles of the Old Teftament.— To prove xht former of thefe propofitions, we need only -coofidcr, In what manner the prophets defcribe the true SECT. ï\\ 189 CHAP. :-. Gcd — How they leprefen!: the MeiTuh — O.i what fundamental truths the^' eltablll'h the Jcwilh religion^- And wi;h what circuinilances they defciibe the eitabhih- nent of die New Covenant, and the calling of the Gentilts. The prophets defciibe the Irue GoJy by titles which they give to him, exclufive of all other beings. To diiHnguiili him from all his creatures, and to aifeit his infinite fuperiority over them, thofe amaruenfcs of heavenly wifdom call him ; The Creator of heaven AND EARTH THE FlRST AND THE LaST THE KiN'G OF GLORY— THE SeARCHER LF HEARTS THE Saviour and Rideemer — the Judgf, Lawgiver, AND KisG — And, THE MoEF HiGH. — Here it is to be obfcrved, that thefe are not only the charaflersof the true God, but they are fuch charadlers as are peculiar to him ; fuch in wiiich no creature has a ihare. For He only is the Mo.l High : He onj knoweth the hearts of the children of men : He only blotteth out tranfgref- fion fur his own fake : He only is the Saviour and the Redeemer of Ifrael ; for He exprcfsiy declares theie is none elfe. — It ought alfo to be remarked, that thefe charaders are fuch as principally didinguifh the Creator from the creature ; and that it would be very difficult, either to invent, or to meet with others in the facred Records, by which the important ; ivijdom and the dej^n of the Holy Spiiit who ufed them. Though it were not the Spirit of God, buta man of common prudence and piety, who aded on this occaGon ; we cannot imagine, if he forefaw that men would fall into fucii a miHake as to commit idolatry, by treating a mere creature as if he were the true God, that he would ever think of drfcrlb- ipg Jefus Chriit by fuch charatTters as thofe before us- If our adverfarics could put themfclvcs in the place of the prophets, and were, by Jehovah's order, to form an anticipated model of the Chriilian rcli'^ion ; they would take p-\rticular care not to defcribe the expeded MefTiah after tliis manner. * It is not Co furprifing, perhaps they miy fay, that * the prophets fhould fpeak thus of a man, to whora * they knew God v^/ould communicate his name and * glorj'.'— But if that had been the reafon of their conducf-, it is unaccountably Grange, that they fiiould fo frequently inculcate the following truth?, as tl^e fundamental prin- e'pfcs of their religion. " The gods that n-iade not the *• heaven?, (hall periili from the eartlil^-I will not gi^'C *• my glory to another — Thou lliAlt worfhip tlie Lord *' thy God, and him only (halt thou ferve — He that *' f^yearcîh on the earth, fliail fv/ear by the God of truth " Truths tîicfe, efkntial to the Jewilh religion, and qv.ite inconfiiknt with the idea of a fubordinate and dependent God. 6ICT. lY. 192 CHAT. I. The truth of the propofition we here endeavour. to confiim, will be fhll n.ore evident if ve confider, JViib Kx-'Lat c'lrcumjlances the prophets defcribe the calling of the Gentiles and the eftablifhment cf the New Covenant, ly J^fus Chrifl. I'hefe grand events are defcribed by tlic following charafteriQics. An umverfal end exuberant 'ijy, '^ Be )e glad and rejoice for ever in that which I »' create : for bthold I create Jerufalem a rejoicing and ** her people a joy — Sing, O heavens, and be joyful, O *' earth, and beak forth into fmging, O mountains 1" And, as if inanimate creatures v.-ere faddenly to poflefs the powers of reafon, hi order to fhare in the pleafure Lnd praife, the prophets declare, that the iHes and tl\e fca, the earth and the mountains, the forefls and the cefarts, fliall (houi for joy. — Gcd'*s dii-eUi .g among men. *• Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion ! for lo, I *' come, and I will dwell in the midfl of thee, faith the '* L0R.D. Behold YOUR God will come — He will come *' and fdve you. Then the eyes of the blind fhall be «* opened, and the ears of the deaf fhall be unfloppcd. *• Then fhall the lame man leap as an hart, and the <' tongue of the dumb fhall fmg.'^ — The exaltatkn of God. ** The Lord alone fhall be exalted in that day." — The deJîruSion of idols. " The gods, that made not •' the heavens, fhall perifh — The idols he fhall utterly " i-bolifli — From all your idols will I cleanfe you. If the Spirit, by whom the prophets uttered and penned their predictions, forefaw things as they were to come to pafs ; then he knew very well, that he defcribed the calling of the Gentiles and the eftablifhnient of the New Covenant, in fjch a manner as would never be ■verified — He knevv^, that the gofpel, while it deftroyed one fpecies of idolatry, would introduce another m.cre dangerous. For if we compare the Chrifhan idolatry, which makes an idol cf Jefus Chrifl, by fetiing him on ihe throne of the Supreme Being, with the idolatry of the Heathens; we Ihall find that the latter has the- advantagc: of being the kfs dangerous^ in feveral refpefls. SECT. IV. 193 eii-\r. u The Pdgan idolatry was grofi^y n!>Jurd, and unvoril;/ of uncieilianding peiibns ; but the Chridian idolatry n fp-r'Uud! and much more- plajH'olc. The former fprarg froi.» 9n abufe of natural light; the latter from the moft iiatur,.l tifc we CdD make of written Revelation. For what \xi'z more nataral, than to undctiland its expreiucns in th^ir common and well-known fi^nification ? The r.:g;i.j idolatry was repeatedly and peremptoi il y yc-rZ'à/^fw, by the Holy GliOll, from age to age j forbidden under the molt awful penalties, and in the mofi: alarming way, both in the Old and the New Teflament ; whereas the Chriilian idolatry is a mifcliicf which the Sjnrit c: prophecy either did not nl oil forcjecy or, forcfeting, ufed no means to prevent ; but ratiier, by various forms of expreilion, to encourage and authorize. The former did not run fo high, as to equal thtir fubordinaie divinities with Jupiter, their fupreme god ; but the litter confids in treating Jefus, a mere creature, as the Moft High. Though the Heathens worfliipped lèverai gods, yet they did not confider tliem as pofTefled of infinite perfei5tion ; whereas ChnJIiaus believe it of Jefus ChriiL God's jealoufy alfo is fooner provoked, by inverting a very excellent creature with his avcribuics and glory, than by transferring his Divine honours to one that is mean and bafe; becaufe the confecpiences aie more dangerous to the intereîl of men and ilie glory of God. I'he Chr'ijlian idolatry, therefore, being' a more plaufible evil, is more pernicious, than that of the Heathfns. Kither, then, the Spirit who infpired the projihets, did not forefee thii^gs as they v/ere to be ; or he knew that the ca'ling of the Gentiles would not be fignalized î)y the deflruelion of idols : but, on the contrary, that a njore abfard and kfs dangerous idolatry, would give va/ to one more refined and more deilru^fiive, that wouij foon overfpread the vvforld — that the defire of the nations, would become the idol of the people ; and that the vt: y name, which v;as to be given amorg men, and bv which R *=LC T. i■'v^ ig4. • chap i. rhey were to be farcJ, would become, for many age» and over all the earth, a name of blafphemy. — CJonlc- quently, God has been fo far from being exalted, under the new difpenfation, by the abafen^nt of men ; that, at its commencement, he himftlf bcg.in wht abafed^ by the exaltation of the man Jclus : bccanle the exaltation of Chi id occafioned the apodles to compare him U'ith God, and boldly to afcribe to him an equality with God, by invefling him with all the prerogaftftes and titles of tiic Great Supreme. The prophets, therefore, had no great reafon to rtjoiee, in the profped of the gofpel and its reception in the world ; fiuce, by its mofl natural imprefTions, it betrays men into idolatry. — To which I may add, were the fertiment of our adveifaries true, God would be much leisprefent in the ChriO.ian church, than he was in the ancient findluary : for he was there in the cloud of glory over- fhado wing the mercy-feat, in a very illuifrious manner ; but our opponents will not allow Jefjs Chrld to be any more than a man. The Spirit of infpiration, therefore, înliead of making " God*s *' dwelling with men," one of the chara^terillics of gofpel-tiines, would have fpoken more agreeably to fa(5l if he had faid ; Under the Ne'.v Covenant, God ftiall not vouchfafc the illuRrious tokens of his intimate prefence, to fo great a degree, as he did to the ancient IfraeliMlh church. Thus the charaders of the true God, which are drawn by the ancient prophets ; the chara(5lers of the Mefliahj recorded in the Old Teftament ; the fundamental principles of the Jewifli worfliip ; and the circumftances which were to attend the eÔablifhment of the New Covenant and the calling of the Gentiles, all confpire to fhew. That the Spirit of prophecy either did not foretel events, as they were to come to pafs j or that the fyflem of our opponents is falfe. 5 EC T. ÏV* 195 CHAP. iL .CHAPTER IL 'jf Jksus Christ be not of the fame elTcncc v/ith his Father, cither the Apoflles dij not utiderflanJ the Prophets, or ihey defigned to betray us into error. y\S ihe hypothefis of thofe who ccnfider Jefus Chrid as a mere creature, ca(h a foul reHedion *on the predidions of tlie ancient prophets ; fo, by .unavoidabje confequence, it obliges us to conclude, That though the aportles made the Old Tf (lament the ■fouiidadoii uf their whole do(^trine, by coniUntly appcal- inj; to it ; and thougii they received the Holy GhoR .\^'iiore province it was to lead them into the true fenfe of it; ye»-, afler all, they did not undcrftand it. The jtruth 0Ï this piopoûiion we (hall endeavour to prove in the toliowiog paragraphs ; by confidering a few of thofe |iaif-iges in the Old IXtament, which the apoitles apply to Jefus Chri(t in the New. 'I'he eloquent Ifaiah fays, ** The ?oice of him that ^* crieth in the wildernefs, Prepare ye thk way of ** JEHOVAH, MAKE STRAIGHT IN THE DKSART A •* HIGH-WAY FOR OUR GOD " Zachjrias, fJled with the Holy Spirit, and applying this oracle to his infant -fon, cites and expounds it thus: *' And thou, child, •*' fhalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for •* thou fhalt go before the i'jiZt of the Lord to prepare ** his ways." — In both thefe oracles, it is evident, thtft exalted chara<5]:ers, Jehovah, our God, the High est, and the Lord, are applied to the fame glorious Perfon. And it is equally certain, from the con liant application .of them by the facred writers, that they are peculiar to -God. Confequently, if they belong to Jefus Chrifl, he mud be a Divine Peifon, of the fame eifencc with h-4 .FH;her, and the Moil J-ligh. M.CT. IV. 196 CHAi\ n. That all theft; ?.(iorable niîTnes really belong to our JLcrd, a];pears from thtir being applied to him by ihe i.oerring Spirit. For he, before whofe face John the Baptill was to go, is Jtfjs ChrilL It mull be either ile, or God the Faihei. Not ihe Faihcr; for cither ihicfe words, " i'hou (halt go before the face of the '• Lord," are to be under flood in a prcpcr fenfe ; in fuch a manner as the Lord was to ccme properly to jr.en ; agreeable to that faying, " Your God will come *• — and fave you :'* or they are to be taken^^~M/-rt// Wj ; Hiid only iignify, that God would viHt mankind in an extraordinary way, either in juftice, or in mercy ; and that John fiiouUi be inlh-umental in preparing the way to Divme mercy, by bringing them to repentance. If the j'-ji-mcr^ the oiacle cannot agree to God the Father ; for -Me did not come properly to men. if the latter, Joha liid not walk before the face of the Lord ; except ift liv; fame fenfe as Noah, who was a preacher of righteouf*- i.jfs, and denounced the judgments of God on a finftâ î^cneration : or as Mofes, who fpuke to Pharaoh that lie ftiould let the people go; and to the Uraelites, prjrfuading them to believe what was revealed to him $ ti.us preparing the way to God's mercy, in the redemp- lioii ot ifrael, and to his jufiice, in the punifliment of his cncHiies. But if fo, we mult feek the accomphfhment cf the prediclion, not in John, but in Chrift. For if the communication of Divine benefits be intended, by God's coniirif the Father, it raufl have received its accomplifhmen: in the appearance of his Son. In the language of the ^prophets, therefore, Jefus Chri(t bears thofe venerable, ihofe truly Divine names, Jehovah ; our God ; tmp> •Highest ; and, the Lord ; for fuch are the characters ;©f Him before whofe.face John the Baptift went. He ♦isj confequently, the true God. The next ancient oracle that I fhall confider, is that /which is quoted in the eplltle to the Hebrews ; where V. is produced to (hew, v;hat an immenfe difference there •is, between Jefus Chrill and the angels. *' Thou, Lord, •' in the beginning, had laid the foundation of the earth, *' and the heavens are the works of thine hands. They ■" fhall perifh, but thou remained; ; and they all fhall *' wax old, as doth a garment; and as a vefture fhalt >' thou fold them up, and they fliall be changed : but •*' Thou art the fame, ^nd tl:y years Hiall not fail." — Thefe words were undoubtedly fp-sLen, by the pfalmirt, tjof the true God', the. prophets having fo often informed VâS, that he only made the heavens and the earth. Befides, jhe preceding. words cannot be underftood of any bat Jehovah. Either, then, the infpired writer of the cpilHe to the Hebrews, did not underftand the paiTage 'he produced; or he knew that the immutable, the eternal /God v/as defcribed by it ; foi the fublime charaiflers ^contained in it are fo peculiar to him, that there is no jinftance of the prophets applying thtm to any other. So 'lat.when the infpired author applies them to JefusChriih ore T. IV. 198 «CHAP. n. he nnifl eitl^er confider him as of the fame «flence with the Father ; or elfe he (peaks againfl his confcience, to advance his Mafler's honour, and betrays the interefls of God's glory. To fay, with the Socinians, * That he does not apply * thefe words to the great Redeemer ; but that, digrefling * from his former fubjc6t, he makes a fhort apo(irophe * to God the Father ;' is to declare, not the meaning of the text, but what they deflre it fhould be. Such ?.n apodrophe would be very aukwardly introduced here. For it is not the defign of the facred writer, in this place, to affert the glory of God the Father. The Hebrews, to whom he wrote, had no doubt of that : their minds were filled with ideas of his dominion and grandeur. Nor does he compare the Father with the Son ; but the Son with the angels. The Hebrews entertained the hjgheft opinion of that Heveiation with which MofcR ar.d the prophets were honoured. The infallible author ♦akes occafion, therefore, to prefer the New Revelation to the Old ; reprefenting the /an^'r as communicated by the prophets, who were only fervarAs in the houfe of God ; but Û\q former as made by the Son, who is Lord of the houfe. See Heb. i. i — 3. But becaufe it might be objected, That the law was given by the minidration of angels ; he takes occa- fjon to fhew the vail fuperiority of Jefus Chrift, in comparifon with thofe noble intelligences. He allows, indeed, that they bear the honourable charader, ** Mi- nifters of God." As it is written, *' He maketh his *' angels fpirits, and his minifters a flame of fire." Biit then he fignifies, that the Son partakes of his Father^ authority and Godhead. He participates of his authority. This he proves by thofe words of the pfalmift : " Thv " throne, O God, is for ever and ever : a fceptre of " righteoufnefs is the fceptre of thy kingdom. Thou '« haft loved righteoufnefs and hated iniquity : therefore " God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil •" of gladnefs above thy fellows.'' Here we behold our SECT. IV. 199 eiîAP. lî. Lord, as Mediator, receiving the kingdom from his Pather. But becaufe he partakes witli hi'n in the glories of the Godhead, or in the eficntial peifec\ions of the Supreme Being ; he afterwards applies to Jefus fuch oracles as equal him with the Father, and manifellly prove him to be the Eternal God. For he adds, wiih- out the leafl intimation that he is fpeaking of a different perfon ; *' And thou, Lord, in the bej^innipg, haft laid ** the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are *' the works of thine hands They Oiall pcrifh, but '• Thou remainefl — Thou art the fimc, ai:d thy years " fhall not fail " Which di({ln<^ion, between' the authority he received, and his efl'ential dominion, ie contained in a preceding verfe : "Whom he hath •' appointed heir of all things — By whom alfo he made " the worlds." — Thcforwer claufe is exprefTive of that oîconGmical kingdom, in refpe^!^ of which it is faiJ ; ** Thou haft loved rightecHifnefs and hated iniquity.*' This kingdom he received from the Father. The /af.'er claufe indicates his effential glory, his eternal power and Godhead ; in regard to which this oracle is applied to him : *' Thou, Lord, in the beginning, had laid the *' foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the *• woîks of thine hands." This is that participation of the Godhead, in reference to which Jefus fays ; ♦* I am *' in the Father, and the Father in me." — Hence it appears, that the fuppofed apoflrophe, if admitted, would be of little fervice to the caufe we oppofe. For though k might ferve to elude the force of thefe words, ** Thou, ** Lord, in the beginning, hafl laid the foundation of ** the earth" — yet our adverfaries could not defend themfelves by it againfl: the evidence of thefe *' By ** whom alfo he made the worlds ;" it being evident, that he who made the worlds, may well be confidered as having laid the foundation of the earth, and formed the heavens. Again : Thefe words, " Thou remained — Thou art <* the fame — Thy years (hall not fail j" are, even in -SECT. IV. 200 CHAP. M, -the judgment of our opponents, to be underftood cf Jefus Chriit. Nor could they, with the lead Oiadow of reafon, deny it ; becaufe the terms are fy non y mous with thofe which precede, and are inconteitably applied to him. " Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." — The following exprefiions, "As a veilure fiialt thou •' fold them up, and they (hall be changed,'* — they alfo underdand, as relating to Jefus Chrift ; as expreflive of ihe renovation of all things by the Son of God, at the -lad day. But then they violently feparate thefe word« from thofe which immediately go before, and with which .they are clofely .conne(5led. They would perfuade us, «ontrary to all the rules of language ; contrary to the natural fignification of the words, anxi fcope of the -cifcourfe ; ani .a doi;bt. Or, if ^ny doubt fliould ariûe S.ECT. IV, 50I CHAP. lU concerrjing the latter, we need only to perufe the hiftory of that remarkable viflon, as it itands in the prophet» in order to be fully fatisfied. That it is the giory of the Supreme Being of which the prophet fpeaks, appears from the feveral pans of that defcription which he gives of it. The majjily of none but the true God can be fo great, as to caufe the fcraphim to vail thrir faces btfore it. None but Him, vvov:'d ihofe princes of heaven thus addrefs, and thus profoundly adore: ** Holt, holy, holy, is the Lord o? " hosts! The whole earth is full of his " GLORY.*' Nor could tiic prefcncc of any but the Moft High, caafe the prophet thus to exclaim ; ** Woe is mc ! *' for I am undone ! becaufe I am a man of unclean lips ** -^for mine eyes have feen the King, the Lok» " OF hosts." — And that the evangelill applies this oracle to Jefas Chrill, is equally evident. For it is of Him that he fpeaks, in the verfcs preceding ; and it is of Hiiii that he continues tofpeak, in theverftsfollowing: which puts it beyond all rcafonable doubt, that it is Him alfo of whom the eTangeiilt {peaks, uhen he fays; ♦• Thtfe things faid Efctias, when he faw his glory, and '* fpake of him." — From all wliich arifes this argument. Ifaiah faw the glory of the Supreme Being But, at the [^mt time and place, he faw the glory of Jefus Chrifl* Therefore, Jefus Chrill is the Supreme Being. All this is evident, one would have thought ; evident beyond difpute. But what cannot fubtilty do, when rcfolved to cclipfe the brighteil truths : — It aiTeas various things, which are ail equally uiiv/arrantable. For inflance : Tt endeavours to perfuade us, that the pronoun /j;w, does not relate to Jefus Chriit, but to God the Father. It refers thefe words of the evangeli(i, *' Thefe things faid Efaias, when he fav/ his g?ory, and *' fpake of him ;" not to what immsd'ijtcJy precedes ; but to another citation from the prophet, at fome diilance; ** Who hath believed our report, and to whom is the " arm of the Lord revealed:"' And it maintains, that S::CT. lY. 202 CHAP. II. the prophet, in defcribing the glory of GoJy defcribed alfo the glory of Chrlfl ; becaufe the latter is contained in the former. But thcfe fuppofitions and aflertions are all fo wild and unnatural, that a man muft be blind not to fee through them ; and exceedingly fond of error, not to defpife them. As the evangelid, through the whole Chapter, treats of Jefus Chrili, not at ail of God the Father -, what realon has any one to believe, that thefe words mud relate to the Father ? " Thsfe things faid Efaias, when *' he faw his glory, and fpake o^ him." Who does not perceive, and what but a predileer, The Lamb of God, which, though peculiar to Chrift, has no relation to his efience ; how much more impious would ii ht. to apply to Jefus fo many grand titles of the Moft High, which are not only peculiar to him, but exprtffive of his tifence ? In ihe former cafe, the honour of a creature, highly beloved of God, is prejudiced ; in the latter, the glory of God himfclf is injured. In that, the only danger is, left fcandal be given by a profane allufion ; in //vj, there ■would be both fcandal and feduftion ; fuch fedu6lion as would terminate in idolatry and ruin, by confounding the creature with the Creator. Our oppofers, then, may put their imagination upon the ftretch and rack their wits ; they may labour to render fome books of the Holy Scripture fufpccted, and fpecuiate on the manner hovv' the apoliMc^s were infpired, as long and as much as they pleafe ; but it will all be to no purpofe, while it remains a fa<5t. That the apoflles .have applied to Chrift, whether by way of allufion, or of accommodation, or otherwife, thofe oracles of the prophets which charaâerize the true God. For if Jefus Chrilt be not a partaker of the Divine efience ; if he be a mere creature, to whom fuch chara(51ers cannot pOiTibly belong; we mu(l confider the apofUes as betraying Xis into idolatry', by impious witticlfms, and blafj.^hemous applications of the prophetic Writings. — It nect/ruily faliow5; therefore, if the hypotheîis of our adveruries iECT. IV. 215 CHAP, III. be tru2, Tliat the prophets did not forefee things as they wers to come to pafs ; and that the apoflles, either did not underdand the prophets, or they deligned to betray U3 into error ; confequently, that there is no harmony between tlie Old Tcilament and the New, k 2l6 SECTION V. If Jesus Christ be not the true God, neither the ancient Jewifli, nor the Chrif- tian Religion, is attended with fufficient Criteria to diilinguilh it from Impollure. CHAPTER I, The profoCtion proved, in refpcA cf the Jcwifh Religion. In order to prove the propofiiion, it will be proper to confider, How God was pleaftd to manifeft himfeif under the Old, and alfo under the New Tella- ment. — At the commencement of the Mofaic ceconomy, Jehovah nianifefkd himfelf to the fon of Amram, upon mount Horeb, in a burning-budi : but it is very obfervable, that he who appeared to Mofes is called, The angel of the Lord. " And the angel of the *• Lord, fays the facred hiflorian, appeared unto hira •* in a flame of fire, out of the midli of a bufh — And <' Mofes faid, I will now turn afide and fee this great *' fight — And when J •: h ova h faw that he turned afide ** to fee, God called unto him out of the midft: of the «* bufh and faid, Mofes, Moil-s. And he faid, Here ** am I — And he faid — I am the God of thy father, •* THE God of Abraham, the God of Ifaac, and «* THE God of Jacob." But I forbear to tranfcribe the whole account of this wonderful vifion j the reader may perufe it at his leifure. SECT. V. a 17 CHAi'. I, It may, however, be remarked, that when Mof-; «tifcovered a rel advance to obey the Lord, by going t.-. Pharaoh, becaufe he had an impediment in his fpeecl' ; he was rebuked by him in the following manner : •' Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the *' dumb, or deaf, or the feeing, cr the blind ? have *• not I THE Lord;'* And, Mofes inquiring what he fliould fay to the children of Ifrael, when they fhould afk who it was that fent him ; God gave himfclf a new name; for he faid, ** I am that 1 am. Thus H^alt ** thou fay unto the children of Ifrael, I am hath fent ** me unto you." At the fdme time, to obviate any fa'picion which might arife in their minds, that Mofes fpake of an unknown God, the Divine Speaker adds ; *' Thus flialt thou fay unto the children of Ifrael, The " Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, " the God of Ifaac, and the God of Jacob, hath " fent me unto you. This is my name ior ever, " and this is mv memorial unto all genera- *' TioNE." And, afterwards, with great folcmnity adds; " I will (Iretch out my hand, and fmite Egypt with all *' my wonders, which I will do in the midii thereof; *' and after that he will let you go. And I will give ** this people favour in the light of the Egyptians, and *' it Hîall come to pafs that wh.cn ye go, ye fliall not ** go empty." Ant! again, "When ihou gocft to return *' into Egypt, fee that thou do all ihofe wonders before " Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand : but I *' will harden his heart, that he (hall not let tlie people <« go." — He, therefore, who fpake to Mofcs in the bufh, mail be the fame divinely glorious Perfon, who fpake to the people of L^ael from the top of mount Sinai, in the following language : ** I am the Lord thy ** God, which have brought thee out of the land of *' Egypt, out of the houfe of bor.dàge." Confequently, the very fame who gave the law to Ifrael, with fuch folcmnity, majefly, and g'ory. T :lci. v. 2i8 chap. i. He, then, who manifeRs himfelf to Mofcs, is, accord- ing to our hypothefis ; The Angel cf the Lord ; ihc Mefienger of the covenant ; the Etc—: 1 Wifdom ; the Son of God; Jehovah ; God ULKsstD for iter; bat fo foon as you quit this hypothelîs, you run into the moii glaring and impious abfurdities. — That He who reveals himfelf to Mofes, is the y^«o^/ of i/je Lord, vjc O'.igh-, not to queflion, we cannot doubt ; bccaufe it 13 exprefsly declared in the facred text. Nor can any fgure be here fuppofed. For, admitting that an angel of God might, by a figure, be called God ; yet we arc certain that God the Father cannot, by any figure, be called the an^?e/ of the Lord. Here, confequently, according to our oppoftrs, we find a creature inverting himlelf with the names and the attributes, the v/orks and the glory, of the infinite Creator ; fo appropriating them to himfelf, that it is impcllible to dittinguifli him from tlie true God. For he who appeared to Mofes, repeatedly calls himfelf Go»> and Jehovah. He, once and again, denom.inates himfelf, the God of Abraham, the Oot> of Ifaac^ and THE God rf Jacob: and, in fo doing, affuriies the feveral names which the Hebrews commonly gave to their God ; whether to difHnguifh him from all his creatures, or to contrail him with the gods of the Heaihen, or to exprefs his infinite perfedions.— Befides, this Angel appropriates thefe adorable names to himfelf on fuch an occafion, as rendered it of the lad importance to Mofes and the chofen tribes that he fhculd not aflume them. For he takes them at a time when he cannot polTibly do it, without hnpofing on him to whom he fpcaks ; fo impofing on him, as to betray him, and the Ifraelites in general, into idolatry ; and this alfo when Mofes was careful not to be deceived ; when he drew near to fee who it was that appeared to him ; and at a lime when it was of the utmolè confequence for him to know, by whofe authority he was to fpeak to the people cf Ifrael, and who it was that fcnt him. 5ECT. V. $t9 CHAP. I. Aj^ain : He who reveals himfelf to Mofe«, not contented with thofe names which the God of Abraham had ufiially taken, and by which he made himfelf known to the patriarchs, gives himfelf a new name. Now, admitting that a creature might, on fome occafions, lawfully alfume one, or more, of the names of God ; yet, certainly, no creature can give himfelf a nenv nanje of God, with whatever powers he may be invelted, or to whomfoever he may fpeak. For GoA fays, *' I am ** Jkhovah j that is my name — They iliall know that " my name is Jkhovah." Thefe déclarations moH. emphatically (hew, that the great Name is not common to the creature with the Creator. They inform us, if any expreflions can do fo, that it is peculiar to the iSupreme Being, and confccrated to his adtnablc e'Tencc; that it lo belongs to the Mofi High, thrit ii cannot he afl'umed by any oiher. How comes it, then, that we hear an angel fay; *' I am that I am — Say to the ♦< children of Ifrael, I am hath fent me unto you?'* How came he to utter thefe words ; *' The Lord God «* — THE Gob of Abraham, the God of Ifaac, the ** God of Jacob — this is my name for ever; »nd this •* is MY memorial to all generations?'* Further : Tins angel does not only take the names of Ood, but he alfo attributes to himfelf the works and the glory of God. The works of God. This he does, in a very emphatical manner, in thofe chiding interro- gatories addrelled to the procralHnating Mofes. *' Who " made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or ** deaf, or the feeing, or the blind ? Have not I the ** Lord?" Thefe exprefiions evidently fliew, that the angel confiders and reveals himfelf, as the Creator of all things. — The ^lory of God. This he does when he calls himfelf, *' The God of Abrahanî, of Ifaac, and ** of Jacob." For Abraham's God was acknouledged, by that illuftrious prieft Melchifedeck, as the *' PoiTefH r •' of heaven and earth ;" by Ifaac, as the objedl of his %'or{hip, for he is called *' his Fear j" and by Jacub 3i:CT. V. 220 CHAP. I. he ?s adored, as '' God Almighty." Beiidcs, he fays to Mofes, " Draw not nigh hither ; put off thy fhoes ** from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou Ibndtft " is holy ground." In which words he (Irongly demands tliat devotional reverence which is due to none but God. And this angel, after he had brought the Ifraelites out of Egypt (for we have fhewn that He who fpake to Mofes in the bufh, was the deliverer and lawgiver of ihe chofen tribes) fpeaks from the fummit of Horeb and fays ; '* Thou (halt have no other gods before me." Now, on the hypothefis of our opponents, it (hould ilem that this was done, to render the Ifraelites guilty of impiety and idolatry. Of impiety : for if the true God be more glorious and worthy of adoration than this angel, with what propriety could he fay, " Thou fhak *' have no other gods before me?" — Of ululai ry : for with whatever characters this angel might be invelicd, if lie was not the Moil High, he could not lawfully require fuch honours as are peculiar to God. — In a word, when the law commands us to worfhlp God, and him only, it either fpeaks of a fupreme or a Julontinate worfhip. If the latter, then, as before obferved, there is no fuch thing as fupreme worfhip mentioned in the decalogue. If the foimer^ as our adverfarles themfelves acknowledge, then it follows, that this Angel, though inferior to Jehovah, required of the Ifraelites that fupreme worfliip, which is due to none but the true God ; and, confequently, betrayed them into idolatry. This idolatry is of a remarkable kind, and has various peculiarities attending it which are very furprifing. For it is not criniinaî, on the part of the Ifraelites. They cannot be juflly blamed for concluding, that he who calls himfeif " the God of their fathers," is the true God; and that he who affumes the great name, Jeho- vah, and claims the honour of " making the dumb and " the dtzï^ the feeing and the blind," is the Creator of all things. Nor are they culpable for paying to him 1 ^ECT. v. C2I CHAP. r. who reveals himfti/ to them as the Creator and the Mighty God, r.ipreme worfhip. — Again : This idolatry is, if I may be allowed To to fpeak, oi divine ivjlitution. Idolatry ufually fprings from our corruptions ; but this has its original in Divine Revelation, if that v.-hich Mofes received deferve the name. For God himfelf fent the Angel who afTiimed the peculiar cliara(5lers of Jehovah's glory ; or, at leaft, the Angcl pretends to be God, the God of the Hebrews. For when he fays to Mofes, " T am the God of Abraham, the God of Ifaac, " and the God of Jacob ;" he either defigns to pafs for the God of thofe patriarchs, or he does not. If /jc/, his difcourfe is impertinent from the beginning to the end. If he dots^ it is he himfelf who betrays the children of Ifrael into idolatry. — Once more : This idolatry v/as unavoulvJi. For the ancient Hebrews could not avoid it without maintaining, cither that the true God, the God of their fathers, when condcfcending to reveal himfelf to man, was not worthy of that adoration which he requires ; or, that He who manifcded himfelf to Mofes in the bufli, and to the people on Sinai, was not the true God, the God of the patriarchs. * But this Angel fpeaks in the perfon of Him v/ho.n * he reprefents ; and it is as an ambaffador of the Mofl * High, that he bears the names of God.' Then he fnould have told Mofes fo, when he anxioufly inquired of him, "joho he was ; and defired to be informed, by Tjhat nam: he (houid make him known to his brethrca in Egypt. Had that been the cafe, it was eafy, it wa-î natural, it was abfolutely ncceflary for him to have faid, * I am the amhajfjdor, or the ynejfen^er^ of Abraham's * God.' But, indead of that, he fays, *' I am run ■** God of Abraham." — Various reafons concur to afTare «s, that he did not confider himfelf, that he did not teveal himfelf, as an ambaffador. For inftance ; An ambafiador does not give neiu nanus to his matter, when ipeaking in his perfon, and (landing in his place. An ambaflador, v/ho reprefents his fovereign, cannot fay, T3 SECT. V. 222 CHAT. I. * Ye (hall have no other king but mc ;' without forfeiting his allegiance, and deferving to be treated as an enemy to his prince. An ambaflador docs not attribute to liimfclf the perfonal qualifications of his mafler ; fuch as, his wifdom and power, as this Angel attributes to him- lelf the pcrfeâions of God. Nor can any ambafiador adiinie to himfelf the names and titles^ the 'works and honours^ of the fovereign whom he reprefents ; without provoking the jealoufy of his ma(ler, and being guilty cf high-treafon. For, an ainbaffador is called to advance ihe honour of his mafter ; not to afTume his prerogatives and rob him of his giory, as this Angel does, if he be only an ambafiador. Our oppofers may fearch for examples as much as tiiey pleafe, to countenance fuch a condu<^ ; yet I will venture to fay, they can find only one, which is that of \htjlage: on which we behold a prixate perfon, afl^jming ail the names and titles of the king he reprefents ; attri- buting to himfelf his works, and requiring his honours. Eut here it is all fidlitious; there is nothing ferious in it : cr, if the actor v/ere ferious, he would be in danger, cither of being defpifed for his weaknefs, or of being punifhed for high-treafon. Inexpreflîbly fhocking would it be, to confider the Mofaic religion in the light of a comedy; in which an angel, a mere creature, adts the part of the Supreme Being. For that would reprefent, matii as deceived and ruined ; God, as difhonoured and blafphemed j and both by Divine connivance, both by Divine agency. Yet, horrid as the thought is, it is countenanced by the hypothefes of our antagonids. For, according to their view of this pafTage, an angel of darkntfs, intending to draw mankind from the worfhip of the true God, and l>eing permitted by Jehovah to pradife his wiles and his malice ; would have taken the fame method, as this angel did, in order to fucceed in his malignant defigns. What elfe could he do fo likely to anfwer his end, as to afcribe to himfelf the naa^es, titles, and works of the SECT. V. 223 CHAP. I. Deity; by faying to tlie Tfraelites, " I am the Goiy ** of your faiheis; — the God of Abraham, the God ** of Ifaac, and the God of Jacob?" — We cannot believe that he who fpeaks to Mofes is a mere creature, without fuppofing, that a mere creature de(igns to pais for the God of the Hebrews. For how is it poflible to conceive that an angel, who does not defign to be confidered as the God of Ifrael, fliould fay to Mofes, with a view to inform him who he is ;** I am the *• God of Abraham, of Ifaac, and of Jacob ?'* But if he be a mere creature, and yet defigns to put himfelf in the place of God ; he is guilty of impiety, and chargeable with a defign of leading mankind into idolatry. Thus we muft conceive of his condu<51. And though ■we fhould afterwards find that he performs very won- ilcrful works, yet they may be jufUy fufpec^ed ; becaufe the law direifls us to judge of miracles by the dotflrine, not of dodrine by the miracles*. Thus the Jewifn religion lofes its Divine chara<5lers ; and, indead of being an appointment of God and the praâice of it communion with him, we conceive a black fufpicion, that it isa trick of the fpirit of darknefs, and an idolatrous commerce. The fuppofition is horrid ; but, without abandoning the Socinian and Arian hypothefes, we cannot eafily lofe fight of it. For what criteria will you find in the Mofaic fyflem, to convince you of its divinity ; if yoa once confider it as having its rife in deception and falfehood ? Do you mention its hoUnefs ? but that, more than any thing, is cabled into queftion. For what holinefs can there be in a religion which originated in impofture, and is maintained by idolatry ? If you fay, God fpake to Mofes ; it is anfwered, Not God, but an angel, who put himfelf in the place of God. If you allege the mirackt that were performed by Mofes ; I reply, Many and wonderful works were alfo wrought by Pharaoh's • Deut. xiii, x— J^ SECT. V. 224 CHAI'. î. Bisgicians: fo that little more can be infcrreclfrom thence, than that the fpirit, of whofe agency Mofes was the inftrument, was more powerful than he who favoured the magicians. For fads, liowever great and wonderful, ought not to be afcribed to the immediate agency and miraculous interpofition of God, if inconfilJent with hohnefs ; which is manifel^ly the cafe, in tlie Mofaic religion, on the hypothefes condemned. That the Angel, who reveals himfelf to Mofes, aâs inconfiftently with the glory of God, fuppofing that Angel to be a mere creature ; will further appear, if the following things be confidered. It is evident from the Scripture, that God's defign was, to exalt Jefus Chrift above all the angels. For of him it is written, " He hath, by inheritance, obtained a more excellent *♦' name than they — To which of the angels faid he at •' any time. Sit on my right hand, until I make thine ** enemies thy foot-ftool ? — Let all the angels of God •' worfiîip him." — This is the dodrine of the facred author. — But Chrilt, according to the Socinians, is exalted above the angels, not on account of his nature; for the human is far inferior to the angelic nature ; but in virtue of the offices ^ trujs, and^//?/, which he received. For, on their principles, it is only on account of thefc that he is called God. If, then, he was a mere angel who appeared to Mofes, and delivered the Ifraelites from Egyptian bondage ; it unavoidably follows, that an angel was more exalted and more honoured than Jefus Chrift, contrary to God's defign. This appears from hence. Jefus Chrifl, according to O'jr opponents, is called God, by a kind of analogy ; but this angel caHs himfelf, " The God of Abraham, ♦' of Ifaac, and of Jacob." — Chrifl: is addrefled only vith fubordinate worfliip ; but this angel caufes himfelf to be adored, as the Supreme Being. For he fays, V Thou fhalt have no other gods before me." — The former attributes to himfelf the works of God ; fo does the latter, io the m.oft explicit manner. " Who hath SECT. V. 2^5 CHAP. r. ** made man's mouth ? or who maketh the dumb, or ** deaf, or the feeing, or the blind? have not T Jehovah ? " I will Ihetch out my hand, and fmite Egypt with all *' my wonders— 'I will bring you up out of the afHicftioa ** of Egypt — I am the Lord thy God, which have *♦ brought thee out of thee land of Egypt." — Does Jefus bear very high and honourable charaders r fo does this angel. For he is called God, and Jehovah, repeatedly ; he is alfo denominated, the Lord God of theHkbrews; the Fkar of Ifa.îC ; and the Judge OF THE WHOLE EARTH, in whofc prefencc the re- nowned Abraham was but dull and aflies ; for it is the fame Angel of the Lord, concerning whom all thefc things are fpoken. Now as thefe characftcrs, in the opinion of our adverfaries, are too high and grand for Jefus Chrifl ; they ought, upon their principles, to confider this Angel as ufurping the glory of God. But if fo, he betrays the Ifraelites into impiety, and becomes their idol. Confe- quently, the religion which he teaches, the religion which he e(tablifhes, has not fufficient criteria to diftingaifh it from impoilure. — You meet, I allow, with many wonderful and fupernatural things in the eftablifhment of it; but then you find them produced by one who ufiirps the glory of the true God, which is a charatfter of the fpirit of darknefs. What a blafphemous thought ! what a detefîable fufpicion 1 Does the fpirit of darknefs concern himfelf in the holinefs and happinefs of men, that he fhould give them fo pure and perfcvfl a lav,' ? Impoffible ! We may reft aifured, therefore, that the principle which leads to fuch % monitrous and horrid conchjfion, njuft be (dC^» k SECT. V. ^26 CHAP. II, CHAPTER IL The propofition J>rovcd, in rcfpea of the Chriftian F eligicn. W] HAT has been faid of the Angel who appeared to Mofes, may be aflerted of Jefus Chrirt, if the doétrine of our oppofers be true. To prove and iliuii^rate the point, I would offer the following things to the reader's confideration. The New Teftametu, it is evident, afcribes the mofl fignal works of God to Jefus Chrilt : fuch as, the creation of all things, which had always charadterized the God oflfrael; i\\q prefervatiov of ail things, which belongs to the Creator ; and the redemption of the world, which the prophets refer to the Si:j)reme Being, an4 to him only. The fame infaillible rule of our faith attributes to him the perfeSionSy and namesy and glory of God. There he is defcribed, as equal with God, as o/î^ with God, and as God blkssj?:d for eter When, therefore, it is conildered, that all thefe things were faid and recorded of him, by his diredion and \)nder hh infpiration, we may venture to afHim ; That 9 proud, prefumptuous, rebellious creature, whofe inten- tion it was to invade the honour, and to put himfelf in the place of God, could not have adopted a more j>romiiing mode of proceeding, or have better fucceedec^ in his deiign. But thefe things deferve a more particii- lar con A deration. The New Tefiament afcribes to Jefus Chrlft the moft magnifcent and fignal zuorks of God. To begin with the work oî creation. Could Paul, intending to defcrlbe his divine Mafter as the Creator of dl things, have ufed more emphatical, or more pertinent exprefiions thaa thefe ? " For by him were all things created that are in *• heaven, and that arc in earth, yifible and invifible \ SECT. V. Il-} CHAP. II. ** whether they be throne:, or dominions, or principali- *' ties, or powers : all thir.^s were created hy him, and *'/or him. And He is before all ihings, and by him all *' tilings confiil." Of Him it is faid, *' There is — one " Lord Jefus Chrift. by whom are all things. All ** things were made by Him, and without Him was not " any thing made that was made. He laid the founda- *< tion of the earth, and the heavens are the works of *• his hands." — The prtfcrvat'wn of the world, or the corfervation of all things, is alfo attributed to him For it is exprefsly faid, ** By him all things confitl.. He " upholdeth all things by the word of his power." — The a dmin'ijî ration of Providence ; and, efpecially, the care of believers. ** Lo, I am with you alvvay, even unto the *' end of the world. Where two or three are gathered ** together in my name, thee am lin the midilof them." A promife this, which Chri(l could not perform, as man, but only as God : bccaufe, as man, he is limited by time and place ; as God, he ad^s independently on both. To fay that he is in the midrt of our religious affemblies * by his Spirit,' is not fufficient. For if the Spirit intended be the Spirit of Chrii^ Chriil mufl be God ; becaufe that Spirit is prefent, with devout v/orfhippers, in all places at the fame time. But that Jefus is really and properly God, Our opponents will not allow. The Spirit in que.'lion, therefore, mult be that of the Father, and not of Chrill ; confequently, not our Lord, but ihe Divine Father, is prefent in our a/Temblies. îs^or is Jefus faid to be in the midil of his people ' by faiih,' \vhich is a gift of the Holy Ghofl ElilTia received a portion of ihe fpirit of Elijah, in receiving from God fuch gifts as were fimilar to thofe of Elijah ; yet it is never faid that Elijah was with the Jews, or in the midil of their affemblies, after his afcenlion into heaven. — That greatefl of all Divine tranfaclions, that mod wonderful of all Divine works. Redemption, is attri- buted to him in a peculiar manner. Hence he is fo cfften, and in the mofl emphatlcal fenfe, called the SECT. V. 228 CHAP. H. Saviour and Redeemer: and hence the church is leprefentcd as his property and purchale. *' The church ** of God, which he purchafed with his own blood." Remarkable words ! They (bcngly imply, that Jefus, the Redeemer, is God ; and that he is declared 10 be fo, by the work of redemption. They lead us a!fo to refleà on that gracious declaration, by an ancient prophet; *' Your God will come — he will come and *' fave you" — Our fandif cation is attributed to hira. He enlightens cur minds and converts our hearts. He quickens tlie dead in fin, and in his hands the faints are preferved to eternal life. Yet faniSihcation is a Divine work: *' for it is God that worketh in us, both to will ** and to do, of his good pleafure."- — The Scriptures attribute the work of gloriJicaÙQn alfo to Jefus Chrift. *' He thatovercometh, the fame fliallbe clothed in white *' raiment ; and I will not blot out his name out of the <* book of life — Him that overcometh, will I make a *' pillar in the temple of my God, and he (hall go no f more out — To him that overcometh will I grant to *' fît with me in my throne." Tlie perfcLlicns of Gcd are afcribed to Jefus Chrifl.— The pcxer of Gcd. He *' upholdeth all things by *' the word of his power." — The knoiukcJge of God. *' All the churches fliall know that I am He which ** fearcheth the reins and heart — Lord, thou knoweft «' all things." — The ttenilly of God. " His name fliall *' be called — The everhlHng Father. Thou art the ** fame, and thy years fnall not fail." — The imtnenfuy of Gcd. " No man haih afcended up to heaven, but *" he that came down from heaven ; even the Son of ** man v.'hich is in heaven." — The truth 7Lï\à fa'ithfulnefs •of God. *' I am the truth — Thus faith the Amen." — The mercy of God : for He pardoneth fin. — The .authority of God : for he conimaivded the gofpel to be preached in his own name ; and fent his difciples to *' baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, *' Sfld cf the Holy Ghoftj" and, as the Judge of aJI, SECT, v.- 229 CHAV. 1:. He declare?, " Î v-ill give to every one accordlrg to *' his works." He alfo gave pjwer to the apoftlcs to woik miracles in his name, as tlie prophets wrought, miracles in the name of God. — Th.çJ-u/lice of God. Foi* of Him the Baptift fpcaks, when he fays ; *' He lliall *' burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.'* Jefus Chrifl alfo bears the moil eminent and exprcfllve iii/c's of Deity. The Most High, is a charader evidently peculiar to the true God. Yet Zacharias, uhen full of the Holy Spirit, calls our Lord, *' The •* Higheft," or the Moil High — The majefly of God is ex},'refled, in the Old Tellament, by the title, '♦ King *' of glory :'' Chnd is called in the New, " '1 he Lord " of glory."— The God of Ifiael is called '' the Holy *< One ;'* Jefjs, according to the evangelift John's application of Ifaiah's viHon, is adored by the feraphim as the " thrice Holy Lord." — He is alfo ftyled, " the Saviour ; the King of kings, and Lord of lords ; *' the Firft and the La(l j" which are titles of the Supreme Being. Again : He is declared to be, one vvith<]lod ; equr.l with God ; the fame v>ith God. He is one with God. ** I and ihe Father are s/.'^-," fays tlie Amen, the faithfid and the true Witnefs. One ; not in perfon^ for they are diftindr : bcfidcs, the word bk, is in the neu'er gender, and will not bear fuch an interpretation. Nor in corfeni; for the fenfe is too low : it afierts nothing of our Divine Lord, but Vv'bat may be aiBrmed of every creature that is ])erfe<5lly holy. All the faints in light, and all the angels in glory, are one with the Father, by a confer.t of will ; they having no inclination, no defire, contrary to his. It muft, therefore, be an unity of eftn^e that is here intended. And that it is fo appears from the context. For Jefus having declared, in the imn^ediately preccdi:>g verfes, that ♦' his (beep (hall never perilh,'"' and that none fhall pluck them, either out of his own, or out of his Father's hand? ; adds, to confirm the aifertion, and to judify his claim of invincible, Di\ine U bilCT. V. ^2>^ CHAP. II. power ; " I and the Father arc one." It is, therefore, an unity of pnxver which he means. But he who aflerts, that two are one by an unity of power ; affirms that ihey are one by an unity of eficncc. A Chriftian, in the prcfent ftate, may be one with God, by an unity of confenc ; he having nothing to do, in order to fuch an unity, but cordially to acc^uiefce in the methods of Divine providence and grace : but lie could not without hlafphemy fay ; * Thefe, or thofe, fliall never perifli ; ' nor fhall any one pluck them out of mine, or my * Father's hand. I and the Father are one.* But that which removes every doubt, in this refpecfl, is, thefe expreflions are explained, and our fsnfc of them fupported, by other pafTages perfedly fnnilar. Jefus Chri(i: is eq-ial with God. " He thought it «* not robbery lo be equal with God," fays an unerring writer. This equality raufi include fomething greater, and fomething more Divine, than an unity of confent between Chrilt and the F;ither. Nothing fliort of an unity of ejjence can anfwer the import of the phrafe ; for, otherv/ife, it would contradid that high demand, fo often repeated by Jehovah ; ** To v/hom will ye *' liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, *' that we may be like?'* — Some, perhaps, may fay; < Jefus Chrid is equal with God, becaufe the Father * has exalted him to an equality,' An equality, in what refped ? Of nature? Our adverfarics cannot fuppofe it. OÎ offices i trufts, and honours? But the delegation and grant of thefe necefiarily fuppofe, that he who receives them is, in that refpe^lf inferior to him who confers them. That the Father therefore, fhould exalt Chrift to an equality wiih him, implies a contradidion : becaufe in whatever refpcvfl: any one is exalted by him, in that Tcry rcfpcifl he muft be inferior to him. Jefus Chrift we freely allow, is highly exalted by the Father ; but that exaltation regards his perfon, charadler, and ftate, ds mediator; under which confideration, though he ia th-Ç church's head; yet he is the Father's righteoi^s à SECT. V. 231 CHAP. II. fervant. — Befidcs, the glory of the Great Supreme mull be incommunicable. Again : To be Qne with God ; to be equal with God ; to be God's oiun Son; and, to be God; are, in the language of infpiration, plirafcs of a fimilar import, and may be fafely explained one by another. So, we find, the Jews undcrrtood them. For when our Lord faid, ** I and the Father are one ;" they took up flones to ftone him. And when Jefus alked them the reafon of their outragious conduit, they anfwered ; " Becaufc " that thou, being a man, makeft thyfelf God." Yvoïw %vhence it is evident, that, in their opinion, to be one with the Father, and to be God-, are the fame thing — \\\ the fame exalted point of light they conlidered the harai^er, Son of God, as afîamed by Jefi:s Chrir. For they looked upon him as appropiiuti.v.T i» to himfcl;, in ?i proper, not in ?i figurative fenle. No, they woulii ;iever have made fuch a dir, nor hj^yç j^i^ fç hçavy a cnarge again (I him, if the only c.aufc cf ccr.-;pl„;.-.; liô.i been ; That he called himfelf the Son of God, by a metaphor, or by adoption. For they confidered them- felves as the adopted fons of God ; faying, *' We havo ** one Father, even God." They, therefore, muft mean fomething very different from this, when they fay ; *• We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, " becaufe he made himfelf the Son of God." And, in another place, they explain thcmfelves ; they let us know more fully what they underltood by the augufl charatfter. For when Jefus, vindicating his condudl iu healing the impotent man on the fabbath-day, faid ; *' My Father worketh hitherto, and I work : they ♦' fought the more to kill him ; becaufe he not only had *' broken the fabbath, but faid alfo, that Goo was his " Father, making himfelf eq^tal with God." * Fro.ni which it is manifefl, that to be *' God's own Son," and to be " equal with God," were the fame thing in their account. And, indeed, the characters, oivn Son, and pa/y S:?nj naturally fignify an equality, a faminejs of SLOT. V. 232 CKAT. II. cJcnce. — We hive no reafon, therefore, to be fui prifcd that the Jews, taking his words in their proper Itpfe, fr.oJd think that he claimed and afkrted an equality with Ood. Nor did our Lord give them any intimation, that they had mifundcrftood him ; nor yet the evangelift, as ],edoes in feverai other inllànces of much Icfs importance; which filence is a ftrong prefiimptive proof, that they v.eie not under a miitake about the fenfc of the words : ÎOV fach a miitake, on the principles of our oppofers, r.iipht have been an occafion of idolatry in them ; aVid r niiltake of that kind, not remarked by the hiilorian, ^.culd be calculated to anfwer the fame pernicious .-jrpofe in fucceeding generations. Nothing can be more oppofitè tlian the condud of tliofe Jews, who accufed Chrifl of blafphemy ; and thai wf others, who faid of Herod, ** It is the voice of a god, '• and not of a man." When, therefore, we juflify the one, we mud condemn the other. The former will not ^.ii.w TrH.-» to fpeak of hlmfelf as God, becaufe he i« 1 I ian : the laiier will not have Herod to exprefs himfeif ks a man, but afcribe to him the voice of God. Now if Pro^idence condemn the impiety oïthefe, by punifhing Herod in a (Ignal nianner, for not rejeding their blaf- i hemous applaiife ; Heaven, on the hypothefis of our oppofers, muli approve the hmguage oiihofe who exclaim i.gâinfi Jefus Chrifl, for making himfeif equal with God. And if their chaige of blafphemy had been founded on a miflake, by taking his words in a wrong fenfe ; he ought, one would think, to have fet them right, by explaining the terms he ufed. But if he refufed to corre(5t fo dangerous a miftake on that account, yet was. it not neceffary that he ftiould have done it on ours? that when we read his gofpel, we might not entertaia the deteflable thought, that he equalled himfeif with ihe Mofl High. If, however, he thought it proper not ta explain himfeif, at that time ; yet it might have been c.xpcilcd, that his difciplcs fhould have given us the S£CT, V. '233 Cil A?. îî. true fenfe of the inyneiious v.ords, when they reported them. But, fo far from this, the cvangelhls and apoflles, who undoubtedly knew his meaning ; and who knew alfo that he was condemned for a defign "to abo!tjJo the law of Mofes, and for having blofphetned the fovereiga majeiJy of God, by claiming an equality with him ; clear him in the fermer cafe, and leave us perfedly fatisfied, by fliewing in what fenfe he abolillied the law, and in what refpccls he fulfilled it. But, as to the laiter^ they take no notice of it. Nay, they not only forbear to vindicate hi;n from the charge of blafphcmy, but feem to write as if they intended to confirm the accufation. For, knowing wlv.t had pafied, they give him fuch titles of grandeur and Divinity after his refurreétion, as he never afîumed while he was upon caith. What is it, then, on the hypotl.efiG of our opponents, but to authorize the charge of blafphemy, which the Jev/s faflened upon him, for Paul to .'.(Tcrt ; " He thought it not rcbbcry to be eqj.îal with '«God?'» Further: After thefe invincible reafons to ihe contrary, for invincible they are on the principles of our advcrfarics; the apolHes reprefent their Mailer as being the fame with God ; by faying many fablime things of him, whicli never were, and which never could be faid of any but th.e true God, without impiety. Thy call him God ; God, with the highelt epithets. For example : They call him Thk great God; the tîiue God; God OVER. ALL KLiissED vo'x EVER. In their infallible writings he is denominated, The Lord; (the cxprefiion by which the Seventy render the mod augu(l names of God) THE Lord of Glory; my Lord and my God; the God of Israel ; the King of kings ane» Lord of Lords. H& who is, and v/as, and is to COME. Such are the charafters given by the apollles 40 Jsfus Chriit, by which to judify him againft the charge of «« maki/ig hin:fdf equal with God 3" and by ^^3 SECT. V. 234 CHAP. ir. which to confute the formal and folemn accufation, drawn up againll him in the face of the whole world, under which he died ! The genuine import of feveral of thofe titles which I have jult mentioned, has been already confidered : I ihall, therefore, only jult touch upon a few of them. Th t .I-.ORi)GoD OF IsRAUL, is a title given tojefus Chiif^ by the angel to Zacharias, whtn foretelling the honourable ^vA fviccefsful woik of John the Baptifl. Thefi are his v;crds : "And many of the children of îfrael fhall he ** turn to THE I^ORD THEIR GcD. And he fnall go ** before Him, in the fpirit and power of Elias." He before whom the Baptiit went, was the Lord, the God of Ifrael. But He before whom he went, was Jefiis Chrifl. Jefjs Chriit, therefore, is the God of Ifrael. He is called the true God. *' We know that the *' Son ofGcd is come, and hath given us an underflanding ♦' that we may know him that is true: and we are in *' him that is true, even in his Son Jefus Chrid. This ** is THE TRUE GoD, and eternal life." That inter- ]>retation which rcfeis ihefe words, "This is the tmt *' God," to the Father, and not to the Son, is i^iiïiciently refuted by producing the paffage. The Great God, is another of his Divine titles. ** Looking for that blefled hope, and the glorious *' appearing of the Great God, and, or even, our ** Saviour Jefus Chri(t." The article * which, in the original, is put before Great God, and belongs equally to Saviour, is a proof that both thefe characters are applied to the fame Perfon ; a certain proof, that our Lord is here called the Great God. as well as THE Saviour. The adjeâive greai, being conneded with the term Saviour^ as well as with the term God ; which is the reafon why the Greek article is put before tiîe epithet ^r£û/, and not before the noun God» Tov it'Aydè.cv 0iev KCi! ç'Jl>ifoç, Tit. ii. 13. SECT. V. 235 CHAP. IIU The fame divinely glorious Perfon is c?J^d GoD OVER ALL BLE'SSfeD FOR ^VER. " Of whoiî:,, S COn- •< cerning the flefh, Chrift came, who is ovr.K all, •* God blessed for ever." Th-; parr.eil defire of our opponents, to evade the force o^ this paffage, is evident by their maintaining, that the words, •* who is ** over all, God bleffed for ever," relate to God the Father ; though he is not fo much as mentioned in the preceding verfes, and though the term Chrj/i is the roun, to which the relative who naturally and neceiTaxily belongs. CHAPTER III. K JEsos Christ hi not the true God, the Chiiftian Religion }ias not fufticient Criteria, by which to diftinguifh it from Idolatry and Impoflure, J\ ND now, if the principles of our advcrfaries be true, it is no very diiHcuIt thing to make good of the Chnjiianj what we have already proved of the Jewifh religion : that is, horrid idea ! it is not diftinguifliablc from idolatry and impoflure. Not from idolatry. For in what does idolatry çonfifl, but in confounding the creature with the Creator ? And what is confounding the creature with the Creator, but inverting the former widi the peculiar honours and «Ifential glory of the laiter? Herod, as before obferved, was guilty of blafphemy, and the people of idolatry, v;hen he received their impious applaufe; ''It is the voice " of a god and not of a man i'^* though they confidered bim (Hi! as a real man. They who cart a grain of incenfe before an idol, were guilty of idoJalry, though they did it with rçlu^ânce. One could not fwear by the SECT. V. 236 CHAr. III. emperor's head, without being guilty of the fame crime ; though nobody, on that account, could imagine the emperor to be God. But it would be the height of idolatry to call him God, and to pay him Divine honours, as the Romans did, on fome occafions. Becaufe idolatry does not only confift in giving to a creature all that is due to the Creator ; but in giving any thing to the former, which belongs to none but the latter. The {"acred writers, hov^ever, not only afcribe to Jefu» Chrifl a part of what is peculiar to God ; but they agree in attributing to him all the mod peculiar and eflential -chara(5^eriftics of his glory. They afcribe to Jefus the mod magnificent of all Divine works. To him they attribute the power and wifdom, the immenfity and eternity of God, with other perfe6tions of the Divine nature. They alfo give him God*s titles, names, and glory. How, then, would it be poffible to confound the creature with the Creator to a greater degree ? It may, perhaps, be faid ; • Though the writers of «the New Teftament fpeak of Chrilt as one of that < partakes, in fome meafure, of the glory of the Deity'; * yet, that he might cot be accufed of a defign to < confound himfelf with God, he exprefsly declared, «« The Father is greater than I." — But this is far from, invalidating our argument. A perfon, for inflance, who loves money, who is really a covetous man, and who has bowed all his life at the fhrine of Mammon, will readily allow, That God is the chief good, and to be loved above all riches. Yet fuch an acknowledgment will neither acquit him from the charge of covetoufnefs, nor from the guilt of idolatry. — A man who (hould afTume the titles and names of God, with a view to be ^^rfllipped, would fet himfelf up for an idol, though he were once and again to confefs. Thai God is greater than he. Or, to vary the comparifon. a fubjed who Ihould afcribe to himfelf all the works of his fovereign ; aflume his titles ; and call himfelf, the true king, the great king, and the Igrd of the Hate, whom all around SECTi V. IX":! CHAP. 1ÎÎ. are bound to obey ; — who fiiould ciiufe himfelf to be addrefTed as king, and exa(5l fuch honours as were never given to any but the real monarch; v/ould certainly be guilty of high-treafon, though he might have faid^ OHce at ieaft, The king is greater than I. Again : The Chriitian religion, according to the Socinian hypothefis, is not dillinguilhable from tmpojîure; is littie beiter than an impious comedy^ which is calculated to diflionour God and deceive mankiTîd. For, fhocking to imagine ! Jefus Chriit appears in the church much hke an aélor on the ftage ; v.ho takes the names and titles of a king; who attributes to himfelf his works, and requires his honours, without being really what he pretends to be. Yet with this difference, a player on the ftage, wh^n acting the part of a fovereign, docs not pretend that the play is an important reality ; nor that the fpedators fhould pay him the honours of royalt\'| afcer the reprefentation ; nor yet that they fhould be Hncerely perfuaded he Is a king, "^hWz the p!âjf continues. But here, according to the impious genius of the Socinian fyftem, we have a kind of comedy, in which a mere man calls himfelf God; the great God ; the mighty God ; and the true God ; — who requires Divine honours, and, as God, has received them from his mo(l eminent difciples, though he depend on God for his very exiflence. That the Chriftian religion is turned, by the Socinian fyflem, into an empty appearance and mere (hew, is evident. For you find in it, a reprefenlative God and a metaphorical facrifice ; an atonement, that is only fo in appearance, and an imaginary hell : for the wicked, according to the Socinians, Ihall be annihilated. * But the miracles which Jefus wrought were true and * real ; nor ought they to be compared with the * reprefentations of the ftage.' This confideration, detached from other things, is of little weight. For of what worth are miracles performed by one, who attempted to feat himfelf on the throne of the Deiiy ? If Jefus SECT. V, 238 CHAP. IIJ. ufurp the glory of God, neither humility, nor juftice, ïior zeal for God, nor love to men, can be found in him. On this fuppofition, all his virtues and all his piety are obfcured and Jod : and in their (lead we behold, pride and ambition, injuQice and facrilege, blafphemy and fedu(5tion. For as miracles, accompanied with holinefs, are evidently wrought by the Spirit of God; fo tbofe works, however amazing, which patronize blafphemy and idolatry, ought ever to be confidered as proceeding from the fpirit of darknefs. But I (hail not further enlarge on this argument, nor any longer defile my paper with fuch horrid fuppofitions. Enough, I perfuade myfelf, has been faid to prove, into what a dreadful abyfs the principles of our adverf.iies lead. Enough alfo h.is be£n faid to evince, that the Deity of Jefus Chriil is essential to the ChrifHan religion ; which is the grand principle I propofed t* ^emondrate. ^39 SECTION VI. The principal objc as * attribute the members of a human body to the Supreme ' Being.' — To which I reply ; The indances adduced ;;re far from being parallel. The doiTrrine of the incar- nation is not incompatible with the glory of the Divine Majedy, as is the opinion of the Anthropomorphites : for we cannot afcribe to God the parts of a human body, without fuppofing bounds, mutability, and imperfe(5tion in him. But the dodlrine of the incarnation infers no fuch impious abfurdities. The Divine nature undergoes no alteration, by its union with the human nature. Nor do the expreffions of Scripture, underdood in their moft fliitural fsnfe, and compared one with another, impofe SECT. VI. 243 CHAP. I. 2 neceflity npon us of being Anthropomorphites ; or to attribute our weaknefTes and inipcifcvitions to God. For nature and reafon do not fpeak louder than Divine Revektion, that God is unckattgcaF-'e — That the heaven of heavens cannot contain him — That he is no: l:ke a maty inor any of his creatures. If reafon were to be the rule of our faith, Revelation would be fupeifeded. For, to what purpofe fhould God Eiake known the counfel of his will, if reafon were allowed to fay; * This is not the counfel of God. îc * cannot be, for I do not comprehend it V Thus the confcience would be influenced, not by Revelation, but hv the doubt which reafon had raifed upon it- — Beddcs, if it were lawful for human reafon to fit in judgment oa Divine Revelation, tlic darknefs introductd on u.r.- minds, by fin, could never be diflipated. For hov./ /hould reafon, proud of her own'pretended abilities, and rtfolved to corre^^: Revelation itfelf, be enlightened ? According to this arrogant and felf-fulficient notion, faith in the Divine teilimony is entirely fet afidc ; reafo.i being refolved on following her own light, in preference to that of God in the Scriptures. So that, inilead oF faying, I believe fuch a propofition, how incredible foever it may feem, becaufe God has revealed it ; we mud fay, Though God has revealed it in the mofl plain and exprefs terms, we will not believe it, becaufe ic appears incredible to us. — Again: Were we thus to exalt reafon, what is ufually called Dirine faith, would be much inferior to that which is human : becaufe wo ihould not pay fo great a regard to the declarations or God, as to thofe of our parents, mailers and tutors ^ on whofe bare authority we receive a great number ot truths, relating to the affairs of common life. But, \\ fuch a cafe, where is humility, where is that filial, teachable fpirit, which is one of the marks of oui adoption and regeneration ? What need of fubmittir.g 10 the diclates of Infpiration, becaufe it is the Eternal Sovereign who fpeaks ; when we have nothing to do X 2 •irCT. Vî. 544 CHAP. I. b'jt convince ouifelves of all necoiT.iry truths, by their ovvn internal charadlers ; and to reject, or embrace them, :n exad proportion as they agree or dif;igrce with the Ji^ht of our own undcrftanding ? * Reafon, our opponents will fay, rcifon is the fcun- ' dation of faith : confequently, faith cannot be more * certain than reafon.' — Reafon, I confcfs, leads to Revelation ; becaufe we are taught by it, that Gon is \ fallibly wife, and that ive are liable to err ; that we canr.ot, therefore, do better than regard the light of Revelation, in preference to the uncertain conjeflures of ov.r own minds. Bat then, as reafon leads us to this infallible rule, which was given bv uncontrollable autho- riiy ; fhe requires us to receive, with fubmiffion, whatever The Great Revealer alferts, as a fad ; commands, as a fluty ; or propofes, as an objed of faith, — We may ôifHnguilli three things in faith ; and thefe are, the principle, the difcretion, and the conclufion of it. That findamental maxim and firlt idea in Revealed religion, * Whatever God fays is true ;' I call the principle of faith. Its difcretion^ is that examination by which we affure ourfelves that God fpeaks, and endeavour to underiland what he means. And the conclufion of it, is that afTent which we give to the truth of a propofition, becaufe it is contained in the Revelation of God ; and becaufe we are perfe(5ily fntisfied, that whatever God iays m.ufi: be true. — Thefe things premifed, I readily grant, that reaXon leads us to xht principle of faith. By the pureft light of our underftanding we are perfuaded, that whatever God fays is true. Reafon alio, I freely acknowledge, makes the difcretion of faith : becaufe it is that faculty of the mind which is imprefied with thofe charadlers of Divinity, that are contained in Revelation ; and afterwards inquires, whether fuch or fuch a do(5^rine be revealed, by examining and comparing one pafTage of Scripture with another. But this is all ; and reafon mud acquiefce in what God fays, without prefuming to call into quellioa the truth or the propriety of his words, 6ECT. VI. 245 CKAP. U when once their meaning appears. The contrary difpo- fition is not divine faith, but an intolerable temtrily of a kind of reafon ihar would be independent on God. We may, therefore, fafely conclude, without the imputation of rafhnefs, that the language of Smalcius, in the paflage produced, is pregnant with blafphcmy againd the Reve- lation of God : and in direct oppo(ition to it we (hould fay ; Though this propofition, * God was made man,' appeared much more contrary to reafan than it really does ; yet we ought to conclude, that we are under a millake, and that the propofition exprefTes a wonderful fa«fl and a capital truth, becaufe it is contained in ths: WordofJf. HovAH.— Thefetwodeclarationsccmpared, it will appear, that the former is daiing and prefamptu- ous ; as it includes a manifed preference of the powers of our own underllanding, to the infallible divftates of infpiration ; which is diredly contrary to the nature of true faith. But the latter is mode(t, humble, rational ; as it implies a reverence for Divine authority, and an evident preference of the light of God's Revelation, to that of our own reafon ; difpofitions thcfe, which arc efîential to real faiih *•. * To what :s here f àdby our Author on this intereftlng fub- jec5l, I beg leave to fubjoin the rcafoning of a late el'.gant and evangelical writer, ai}d the tcftimony of a great genius in the beginning of the laft century, relatinjij to the fame truth. Th»; former expreffes hinifcif thus : ' We by no means approve of a ' general and indifcriminate outcry againfl reafon. This v.'ouli * be i::jurious to our facred caufe, and imply a rcflcdlion on our * holy religion ; as though it could not bear th.e fcrutiny of reafon. ' Whereas it will always appear to be a rcafonablc fylleni ; i ' reasonable fcrvice; reafon in its higheft refinement. — If indeed ' reafon afFeils to be felf-fufficient, fhe is an impotent ufurper : but if {he avfl in a ftate^ of dependence, fie is a valuable fervant. Docs f^ie pretend to be our light, in matters of a fpiri- tnal and heavenly nature ? ftie is then a defpicable dotard, or * an ign'is fatuus. Does flic kindle her tcrch at the fire of * Revelation ? fne mav then be a difcerncr of dodlrines, and we ' will call her " I'he candle of the Lord." Submitting to her ' Divine Author, and learning at t;ie feet cf Omniftu^ace, fhs £i:CT. VJ. 246 CHAP. II, CHAPTER IL An objeétion from the fuppofed Silence of the Scripture, anfwered. Ti HAT we may not be fufpecled of weak- ening the arguments of our adverfaries, we fhall make ufe of their own words ; and if, to avoid prolixity, v/e contradl them a little, their objedions will not be the lefs forcible. — The argument, then, uhich appears to us to be the fufl in order, and one of the molt plaufible, is that which they form on the farpofed jUcncs cf tlie Scripture, as to the my fiery of the incarnation. • is reafon in hsr fenfes: ptefuming to be equahv-th the All-wife ; ♦ undert^iking to comprehend his works, or daring to difpute ' his word ; fhe is reafon run mad. In this quality we difclaim ' and cafliier her ; in the other we cherifli and employ her.— * Though I could not, by the powers of my reafon difcover — * though I cannot, by the excercife of my reafon fully explain — ' all the articles of my belief; yet 1 can '' give a reafon," a ' very fatisfadory reafon, '' of the hope that is in me." This * is what the apoftle requires us to do ; and without doing this, ' we are neither wife nor happy.' The latter bears his teflimony in the following words : * The ' prerogative of God comprehends the whole (man ; and is • extended, as well to the reafon, as to the luHl of man : that is, • that man renounce himfclf wholly, and draw near to God. * Wherefore, as we are to obey his laivy though wc find a ' reluélation in our will; fo we are to believe his ivcrd, though * we find a rt-lu6lation in our reafon, for if wc believe only that • which is agreeable to our reafon, we give aficnt to the matter^ • not to the author ; which is no more than wc would do towards • afufpededanddifcreditedwitnefs. — Sacred theology is ground - * ed on, and muft be deduced from, the Grades of God ; and * not from the light of nature, or the didates of reafon — *' To " THE LAW AND TO THE TESIIMON'Y ; if they fpCûk HOt ** according to this word, it is becaufe there is no light in them." Lgrd Bacon's Advancement of Leaming, p. 468, 46p. 5£Cr. VI. 247 CHAP. ÎI. « We fee, fay they, that thofe things which are difficult ' to be believed, yet abfolutely necefTary to falvation, are * very frequently and plainly exprefTed in the Scriptures. * Such, for inOance, as the creation of heaven and earth; •the care which God takes of human affairs; his * knowledge of our tlioughts ; the refurreflion of the * dead, and eternal life, x'arious things alio of lefs * importance, are clearly and diftindly contained in holy * Writ For example, ** That Jtfus Chrift is of the *' feed of David." — -Now, if the incarnation of the < fupreme God were a fad, it would be an article of * faith abfolutely neceflary, and at the fame time very « difficult to be believed. It ought, therefore, to have * been very clearly aflerted, in the Scripture ; and Co * frequently inculcated, by the facred writers, who * defigned to promote and fecure our happinefs, that * none ffiould have had any reafon to doubt whether it * was a part of Divine Revelation. Yet it appears to us, * that there is no fuch thing contained in their writings. * For the pafiages; produced by our adverfarics to prove * the tenet, are of fuch a nature, that they are obliged to * draw feveral confequences from them, before they can * infer the incarnation of the mod Higii God ; or, that * he was made man. — Nor is the dotflrinc of the incarna- * tion mentioned where it fhould be, fuppofing it were * true. For, when Matthew and Luke write the hidory * of the birth of Chriil, and relate a variety of particulars, * of much lefs importance than the incarnation of the * fupreme God ; how is it poffible they fhould have * omitted, fhould have entirely pafTedover in filence, that * wonderful fadl, had it been true ? They inform us, that * Jefus was conceived by the Holy Ghoft ; that he was * born of a virgin, in the days of Auguflus, and at the * town of Bethlehem, with many other particulars ; why * then, fhould they omit the molt important and wonder- * ful thing, and that which was more necefTary to be * known and believed than any other in the whole « narration ? Luke has not forgotten the manger, ia SECT. VI. 248 CHA1^ lU * which the new-born Saviour was laid ; yet he has * oniitted the incarnation of the fupreme God, and fays * nothing about the hypoltaticnl union of the Divine and * human nature. How came it to pafs, that Mark * fliould forget the whole iiillory of ChriO's birth, which * fhould have included the incarnation ; and John, whom * they will have to fpeak of it, fhould pafs over it fo * flightly, and exprefs himfelf with fo much obfcurity ? — * Again : How came the apollles to make no mention * of fo important a do(5lrine, when they preached the * gofpel, and exhorted men to believe on Jefus Chrift ; * and, to induce them fo to do, fet his majefty before * their eyes ? Read the firft fermon that Peter preached * to the people, after he had received the Holy Gholi ; * the fuccefs of which was fo great, that about three * thoufand fouls believed on Jefus Chrill and were ' baptized : Confider alfo his fécond exhortation to the * people, and you may fee, that he makes no mention of * the incarnation in either cf them. Nor will you find * it in any of this apo(tIe*s difcourfes concerning Chiift ; * whether to the rulers and elders of the people, or to * Cornelius, or to others. Paul fays nothing of it, in * the fynagogue at Antioch ; in Areopagus, at Athens j * nor before Felix and Agrippa, at Cefarea. Yet, * certainly, he had a favourable opportunity at Athens, * to have explained this myflery, when he talked to the * Athenians about the unknown God.' In anfwer to this objection, let the following things be confidered. It feems very extraordinary, that they who have fo little regard for the Scripture, fhould jTTiprove its very fiknce into an argument againfl us. At cne time they declare, * Though the Scripture fhould * exprefsly and repeatedly fay, that God was made man, * they would not believe it ;' at another, they argue againft us from the fuppofedj/// was to be a dilHnguifhing cliarader of the Mefiiah's appearance ; and hfe and immortality were tc be revealed by him. Nor was it agreeable to the wifdom of God, that Chrift, in his perfonal miniilry, fhould fpeak f» clearly concerning the fpirituality, or fo fully concerning the mydeiics, of his kingdom ; as the apoftles did after his alcenfion, when led into all the truth by the Holy Spiiit. — A-t other times the Spirit of wifdom makes ufe of the cleared: and cadefl things, to lead us into thofe "which are mere abitrufe and difhcult. The great things which the apoilles were called to declare, were foâs and Joci titles ; fonie of which dodrines were very myiterious. The former were obje»fts of fenfe ; the laiier abflra(ft and Ipiritual. Now it would have been prejx)(Ltrou$ for ihern to have recummended matters c-f Y SECT. Vî. ' 254 CHAP, il, tà^^, by (îrft recommending myflericus doclilnes : becauf^ the order of nature ar.d leafon requires, that the latter fhojld be recommended, by relating and authenticating :he former. If only matters of fad had been neceflary to be laid before us, the four gofpels would have com- prifed the whole of the New Tefiament ; they being the hiflory of fuch facets as are necefl'ary to our falvation, 33 at as, in the grand fchcme of falvation, there are myfterious dodrines, with which it is requifite mankind fnouid be acquainted ; the apoflles were inlpired to write the other parts of the New Teflanr.ent, that we might be informed of them. And if fo, it is far from being iirange that Peter, in his firfl ferinon, after he had received the Koly Ghoil, fliould erjiage the attention of his auditors, by making remarks on that Divine enufion, the effedts of which were fo fenfible and fo wonderful, without faying any thing about the incarna- tion. Nor is it at all amazing that the fame apoftle, after he had healed the poor beggar that lay at the gate of the temple, and perceived the adonilliment of the people, fnouid take occafion to fpeak of our Lord's refurredion, in whofe name he wrought the miracle ; and that he fhould infift on the leading circumHanccs of the life and death of his Divine Malkr, as being adapted to enlighten their minds and alarm their corfcicnces, to foften their hearts and fubdue their pride — much better '.îdapted, to anfwer thefe impotant ends, than a difcourfe on the myiierious hypoftatical union would have been. The faT^e remark may be made on the condud of Paul, on fimilar occafions. — The filence objcded againfi: us is frequently to be afcribed to the marvellous conde- fccnfion of God, in proportioning his inllrudions to our capacities. As it is written, ** I have yet many *' things to fay unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." And again, " We have many things to fîiy and hard to " be uttered, feeing ye are dull of hearing," Thefe affertions, and the reifon on which they proceed, fhew the propriety of Peter's condud and that of othe;- SJECT. VÎ. 2\^ CHAP. II. apodles, when fpeaking to finners not yet converted, or to fuch as had but jult received the light of the gofpel; whom they treat as infants, in the giace of God and the knowledge of Chrift, rather than as adults; laying before them the plaine(t truths, and rcfcrving the more abllrufe till a fitter feafon occurred. The objeâion boldly fuggeil^y that the Scripture is entirely filent, as to the dodrine ot^the incarnation. But this is a great mifiake. For we find hardly any remaric- able occciiion to make it known, but the Holy Spirit improves it for that purpofe. Jefus, at his birth, is called " God with us." At his baptifm, he is honoured m fuch a manner as cannot agree to a mere creature. In the hillory of hs lift and minillry, by the evangeliils, \hc names and attrihvircs, the works and vvorlhrp of God, are frequently afcnlvd to hir.i. And the a;.'oliîes» in their invaluable writings, av5t in a fimilar way, by dtfcribing and treating him as the true God. The objeL^ion alT^rts, that the pafiages adduced to prove our dodrine are fiich, that we are obliged lo draw feveral conclufions before they can ferve our turn. And what if they were ? this would not invalidate the argument formed upon them, provided the conclufions be fairly drawn. But it is a miitake. For the Scripture exprefsly aflerts, that Jefus Chri(l is " God manifelled " in the flelli" — That he is " the Word :" that '* tht; ** Word was God :" and that " the Word was made ** flefii." Here we need only take the natural fenfc of the ex'pieflions, without any further reafoning, to find the incarnation. For the terni^¥(/i> is taken, either for the lody, meiely; wliich cannot be the meaning here, becaufe Chriil- net only afiumed a body, but a bodv united to a fpirit : or it fignihes //«; but this c.inp^f. b; intended, becaufe Jefus afiumed a holy, not a finful nature: or it muli: fignify the human nature; and this, undoubtedly, is the lenfe of the term. The obvious meaning, therefore, of the text is; God was manifelt in the human nature. If we muft reafon, it is only for Y 2 rrCT. VI. 256 CHAP, iiu •be fenre of the terms ; not that we may infer, by ronfeq'jences, sl truth which lay concealed. For theie two propofitions, God nuas made man — God ivas manifefi tn the human nature — are perfeâly equivalent. CHAPTER III. An ObjeAiori from John xvii. 3 anfwered. VJNE of the principal arguments in favour of '' c Socinian liypothe^s, is formed on thofe words of unr Lord ; ** This is life eternal, that they might knov/ " tiice the only true God, and Jefus Chrid whom thoa " lud fent." — * Nobody queftions, fays Crellius, but ' that, by the true God, mult be underftood the Supreme * God. When, therefore, Jefus Chrift reprefecits hi» * Father to as, as the only true God; it follows, that * none bat the Father is the Supreme God.* Before we return a direct anfv/er, it may not be invproper to make a few general remarks. Let it, then, ht here obferved, That as our Lord may be confidered, cither w a ftate of the loweft humiliation, or in a ItaLe <;f the highed glory ; fo he is varioufly reprefented to n?, accoiding to thefe two very different conditions, Accordiftgly he afTumes, in reference to the former, fuch characters as exprefs his abafement ; and, with a view to the latter, fuch as denote his exaltation. In tfce time of his humiliation, he calls himfelf " the Son *' of man,'* much more frequently than '* the Son of " God :" but, after he was glorified, his apolUes conftantly call him, *' the Son of God ;" hardly ever, •* the Son of man." Before his refurredtion, his difcipîes thought they faid a great deal in this confeflion on th:ir faith, ** Thou art Chiilh the Son of the living .^ECT. VI. 257 CHAP. III. ** God :" bat, their light increafing with his glory, when they faw him rifen from the dead, one of them faid, ** My Lord, and my God!'* When Jefus taught his difciples to piay, he gave them an admirable pattern of devotion in what is called, * The Lord's * prayer ;' yet in that excellent diredory, the name of Chrid is not once mentioned. But when the Redeemer is juil leaving the world, and is going to be glorified, he fays to his difciples ; " Whatfoever ye fnall aHv thj *' Father in my name, he will give it you." And, after his exaltation, the church places her hope of Divine acceptance, in devotional fervices, entirely in his interceflion ; addrclTmg her prayer and praifes to the Father, through the hands of her Divine Saviour only. ** Unto Him be glory in the church, by Chrift Jefus, ** throLighoat all ages — Ye are an holy prieQhood, to ** offer up fpiritual facrifices, acceptable to God, by Jcfiis ** Chrill — If any man fin, we have an advocate with the *' Father, JefusChrift the righteous." — Thefe things con- fidered, it is no wonder that Jefus ChriPi, when fpeakin^; of hirafelf in the time of his humiliation, fliould fpeak fuitably to that condition ; nor that, in the evangelical hidory, the Father is more frequently called God, than he ; nor yet that oar Mediator, on various occafions, (hould fpeak of himfelf, as fubjeft to his Father ; and cf the Father, as the Creator of heaven and earth, and t'lc fovereign Manager cf ail events. Arguments drawn from the filence of the Scripture, sre, in fome cafes excellent ; but in others impertinent end entirely fahe. Will our opponents affert, for inîlance, that Chrill: is cot the rsJeemer ; becaufe he taught his difciples the duties of morality, when on the mount, without expvefsly mentioning the work of tedemption ? Or, dare they afhrm, that He is not an intevcijtor \^\Û\ God; becaufe, when teaching his difciples to pray, he does not always dired^ them to afk the blellings they vv'ant, in his name ? — Creliius, then, gains RO advantage to his caufe, by remarking ; « That Jefus ^3 SECT. VI. 258 CHAP. III. * Chrifl, when fpeaking of himfelf on various occafions, * fays nothing greater ; nor yet his apofUes, when * fpeaking of him, than that he is the Son of God.' For as, on fome occafions, Chrift fpake of himfelf as a man ; as, on others, he fpake of himfelf as a prophet, without faying any thing of his kingly, or prieftly, * ffice ; and yet we cannot with any appearance of reafon conclude from hence, that he is neither king, nor prieft, ror mediator between God and man : fo he might fpeak of himfelf, and the apoflles might reprefent him, .-IS a prieft and a king, as mediator and the Son of God, on certain occafious ; withoutlfpeaking exprefsly of ins Divinity, and yet not militate, in the leaff, againfl it. To anfwer more diredly. If our adverfaries mean to prove, from this paflage, that Jefus Chrift is not God, they acH: inconfiftently ; for they acknowledge that lie bears the name in the holy Scriptures. Nay, if they would hence make it appear, that he is not the true Cod, they contradiâ themfelves. For Socinus expre/Tes himfelf in the following remarkable words. * It is very * jalfe that we fhould openly declare, Jefus Chrift is not ' true God. We profefs to fay the contrary, and declare, * that HE IS TRUE God, in feveral of our writings, as * well in the Latin, as in the Polifti language *.' — Jefus * Chrift, fays Smalcius, raay be called, with a fovereign * right. Our God, and, The true God ; and fo he * really is.* And, in another place, he affures us, * That Jefus Chrift is God, in the most perfect « MANNER : PerfeR'iJfmo modo.' — If then, Jefus Chrift be God, the true God, and God in the mod PERFECT manner ; and if this be the fentiment of our opponents, what do they mean by adducing and arguing vpon this paflage ? Is it their intention to prove, by taking the v/ords in their greateft rigour of fignification, that Chrift is not the true God, and that the fublime titk * Seciî». ad Hid. p. 49. SECT. VI. ^59 CHAT, in» belongs only to the Father? But this is diametiically oppollte to their own declarations. Let them, then, £rft agree with themfelves ; after which it will be time enough for us to attempt a coalition with them. It is proper, however, to return a more particular anfwer to their objedion. Paul fays, " t determined not to know any thin^ «' among you, fave Jefus Chrifl, and him crucified." Now, it is evident, if we underlland this declaration in the full rigour of its literal fenfe, that the apodle excludes every objeét from the dodrine of falvation, befides his crucified Lord j but will our oppofers from hence infer, that the Divine Father is excluded from that objed which the apoflle determined to know, in contradi{Hn(51ion to all other things ? No, doubtlefs. Both they and we mufl except the Father ; becaufe we find, from other paffp.ges of Scripture, that the knowledge of liim is abfolutcjy neceffdry to eternal felicity. Were we to tike the words of Paul io their Hricftly liieral meaning, they would be diametrically oppofae lo the declaration cf his Divine Mafter, in the text which is now under confideratlon, and which our adverfaries, with fo muck confidence, objedl again!! us. For the spofile fays, we r.vjft propofe nothing to ourfelves, as the objed of the dodrine of falvation, but the crucified Jefus : while his Lord mod folemnly afkrts the neceflity of knowing tht Father, in order to our future happinefs. Coufequently, thefe aflertions cannot be both true, if undcrftood in the rigour of their literal meaning ; but they ate eafily rccon» ciled by fuppofing that Paul, when he determines ** to ** know nothing but Jefus Chiift and him crucified," doe^ not mean to exclude the Father ; who, being one with the Son, is revealed by him, and known at thç fame time with him. And if our adverfaries themfelves be obliged to adopt this method of interpretation, when thefe two pafîîiges are to be reconciled j why will they not admit of it, when we are called to reconcile the text bçfcrç us, v/hich, according to them alTcrt^, that SECT. VI. ù,6o ciiAr. in. « the Fathef only is the true God ;' with other paflages of Scripture which have taught them, * that Jefus Chrill * is the true God ?' If, when Paul fays, '* I determined •* not to know any thing, fave Jefus Chrift and hinfi ** crucified," we except the Father ; becaufe we are taught, by the fame unerring Spirit, that life eternal conflits, not only in knowing Chrill crucified, but alfo in the knowledge of the Father : is it reafonable, when the Scripture calls the Father " the only true God ;'* that we fhould except Jefus Chrifl ; there being other pafTages of holy Writ which declare, even by the confefiion of our opponents, that he is the true God ? It is very remarkable, that the mofl ingenious of our antagonifls, when handling this argument, deprive them- ftlves of all advantage from it, by the conceflions which ihey are obliged to make. Crellius obferves, on the pafiage, * That the defign of Chrift was not to deny, * that the idols, or gods of the Heathens, were really * idols, or gods of the Heathens; but only to deny, * that they were the true God.* And acknowledges that, if we conf^der the conftru6lion of the words, we ough.t TiOt to cohneft the term only, with thecy Father. * We * would not, fays he, have any one charge us witlv * fuppofing, merely on account of the grammatical * condruftion of the words, that the term on/y ought to « be conneded with ilee^ or ihee Father; for the article * before the adverb only will not bear it ; and, therefore, * We T.uft undcrRand the verb, to be. For, othervv'ife * it were as if Jefus Chrifî had faid, To knoiu that thou * only art the true God; which, though true in itfelf, is * very far from being the fenfe of this pafTage '*.' Such concelfions, from one who holds the firfl place among our opponents, are very confiderable : nay, they are fufHcient to decide the queftion in our favour. For when we produce a text of Scripture, in proof of any particular doctrine ; we reafon, either from the bare * Crell. De D the <* King of kings and Lord cf lords : fiôvoç i^ù^v a^a.- «< YXT/ay, the only having immortality." But as thefe laft words, when reduced to an ordinary confirue'^ion, are thus read, " Who only hath immortality ;*' fo our adverfaries will have it that thefe roy fAoroy that is the happinefs .-ofmaakind, if he were a mere creature. Not modf/^y : .For if Jefas be a mere creature, he is not, in comparifon with God, fo much as a grain of fand, to the firmament ; ^s a glimmering taper, to the fun; as the fmallefl worm, •to the lord of the whole earth. SJiall we fay, then, that the firmament and a grain of fand fupport the worlds That the fun and a glimmering taper illuminate our (terraqueous globe 1 That the lord of the eartli and a .worm caufc; great revolutions in dates ? — Not the rhzrîiCizT of mej'c'n^er: For in wiiat empire was a dutiful fervant ever known to name himfelf with his maimer, and to attribute every honour and ad of royalty to iîimftlf and the fovereign ? Were a minider of date to i/Tue a proclamation informing the public, That all affairs ■relating to government mud be tranfaflcd in the king's and his own name ; were he to caufe his name to be damped, with his royal mader's, on the coin, and to be infcribed en public edifices ; and were he to grant pardons in his own name, he would certainly be guihy of high-treafon. How, then, dared Jefus to adert, that life eternal confids in the knov;Iedgc of God and of himfelf ? How oared iie to inditute an ordinance, and require It to be adniinidered in this form of words; I baptize tJiee, " in the name of the Father, and of *' the Son, and of the Holy Ghod?" With what propriety, truth, or decency, could he fay ; ♦' Ye •' believe in God, believe alfo in Me V Or how dare we fav, ' I believe in God the Fallicr almighty, and * in Jefus Chrid :' The principal terms of which this text confids, £irnid\ us .vith a firrther proof, that the Lord Meiîîab is not excluded from the Godhead of the Father. Let ■*«'.s confidpr the word htozu. By this term we muil SILCT. VI. 270 CHAP. 111. eiiher undtrfland a merely fpeculative, or a pra(Slical knowledge. Not the /ormer ; becaufe our adverfaries themfelves being judges, life eternal does not confifl in fuch a knowledge. For Crellius fays, * It is falfe that * eternal life confifl?, «or yet the means to obtain it, in * knowing that the Father and his Son Jefus Chrift are * the only and true God. This cannot be, if taken * aecording to the letter. Otherwife it would be * fufficient, in order to obtain eternal happinefs, to * acknowledge the Father and the Son for the only true * God. But if fo, all that are of this opinion would * obtain eternal life ; though, at the fame time, they * might be guilty of fuch fms as exclude them from the * kingdom of heaven, according to the exprefs declara- * tions of Scripture. You will fay, then, All this * fhould be taken in an improper fenfe; in fuch a manner, * that this knowledge may comprehend faith in Jefus * Chrift, a faith working by love, and all forts of * graces*.' — It muft, therefore, be a pra8ical know- ledge. And if fo, to know the true God, muft include a reliance on him and love to him ; adoration of him and obedience to his commands. To this our learned opponent agrees. Now, as the term knonv^ is applied • to the Son, as well as to the Father, in the text before us; it neceflarily follows, that eternal life does not only confift in tracing, loving, adoring, and obeying God the Father ; but alfo in paying the fame honours, and in performing the fame duties, to our Lord Jefus Chrift. But if it be our happinefs to knov/ Jefus Chrift, fo as to believe in him and love him, fo as to worfhip and obey him, he muft be the true God ; for it is not poffible that a rational creature fhould owe thefe honours and duties to any other. None but the true God ought to be ferved and worftiipped, in a religious way.' *< Thou fhalt worftiip," fays the fupreme Lawgiver, commented upon by the Teacher come from God; — • CncLL. DeUtio Dee Patre, SeA. I. p. ZI. SECT. VI. 271 CHAP. in. •* Thou (hah worfhip the Lord thy God, and him •* ONLY fhalt thou ierve." None but the Divine Being, therefore, can deferve thofe honours, which are piefented to the proper object of ' faith, and love, and ail forts * of graces.' Life eternaU is another expreffion which defer ves our notice. None but an Infinite Being can render the life of a creature eternal. But Jefus is not an Infinite Being, if he be not the true God with his Father : confequently, on that fuppofttion, he cannot give eternal life. — When the pafllige aflerts, that the knowledge of God is eternal life, and that the knowledge of Chrift is eternal life ; either it means, that the knowledge of the latter is eternal life, in the fame fenfe in which it is aftirmed of the former, or in a different fenfe. If in a different fenfe, no exprelllons can be more ambiguous : they are equivocal, and adapted to lead us into a fatal error.. If in the fame fenfe, Chrift muft beflow eternal life on the fubjeâs of that fpiritual knowledge» for the fame reafon that the Father does to them that know him. But the Father gives life eternal, becaufe he is the true God. So fays the text ; ♦' This is life eternal, that they might *' know thee the only true God." It follov/s, then, that our Immanuel bellows life eternal, only as he is the true God. — Again : Either the knowledge of Chrift is life eternal, becaufe that boundlefs bleffednefs conjifls in this knowledge ; or becaufe this knowledge is the principlt: of it. If the /or;n?r, Jefus Chrift mud be the Supreme Good ; for confummate felicity, or life eternal, is no other than the complete pofielTion of the Supreme Good. If the lailer^ then I demand, Whether this knowledge be the fource of eternal life ; or only a mean to obtain it ? If the fource of it, the objetfl of that mofl beneficial knowledge mud be the true God : for it is only the knowledge of Him that humbles, comforts, and fan^^iifies us ; that produces both holinefs and happinefs, which are the two grand condituents of that life which is eternal. If only as a mean to obtain everlading felicity» SECT. Vï. 272 eilAP. Ill- the language of the text, though feemingly ilrong anrf big with fenfe, was intended to exprefs very low and feeble ideas : for if fo, there is very little excellence in the knowledge of Chrift, which is not found in an acquaintance with other perfons and other things. Were this all, it might have been fawd, with propriety ; * This * is life eternal, to know the law — to know the Scrip- ^ tures. This is life eternal, for the Ifraelites to know * Mofes i' and, at the commencement of the gofpcl- difpenfation, ' for the Jews and Gentiles to know the * apoflles/ For the knowledge of the apoftles, as the meffengers of God and ambafladors of Chrilf, was a mean of obtaining eternal happinefs : and the -knowledge of Mofes, as the honoured fervant of Jehovah, was a happy mean, by which the Ifraelites were brought to obey God and obtain everlafling felicity. Or, if you •,viil, the knowledge of Mofes, and of the apoflles, being a mean of converting finners to God, v/as alfo a mean of bringing them to eternal life. Whether this mean was greater, or lefs, is not material to my prefent purpofe; a mean it undoubtedly -was, and the argument requires no more. — It mult, notwithflanding, be granted, that it would have been impious and blafphemous to have fpoken after this manner ; * This is life eternal to know * îvlofes — This is life eternal to know the apoflles.' And It would be the height of impiety, to call Mofes and the apoftles Eternal JLife, as the Scripture calls Jefus Chrift : " This is the true God and eternal life." Whoever confiders this apofloUc teftimony will find, that the Holy Spirit very clofely co.nne<5^s the ideas of '* the true God," and *' eternal life ;" and that it was iiis defign to inform us, that it is becaufc Jefus Chrift is the former, that he gives the latter. We may, there- fore, fafely conclude, that as he bejlo-ws the one, he lEufl be the other. For when he is called " eternal *' life ;" and when it is faid, that eternal life confifts in ^' knov/ing him ;" the expreflions do not merely lignify, iliat iie /rowj^j everlaliing felicity, or that he beflcuu SECT. Vï. 273 CHAP. III. it on hh difciples ; but that he is the author of it, and that it confias in the enjoyment of him. M.o{çs promifcd the land of Canaan to the Ifraelites, and Joftiua put them in pojfejfion of it ; yet neither the one nor the other is called ' the land of Canaan ;' becaufe fuch a name, for hich a reafon, would be ridiculous. But Chriit is called *' eternal lite,'* and that immenfe blifs is faid to conlift in *' the knowledge of him ;" 10 teach us, not only that ht prom'ifes that ir.iinite bkHtdnefs, nor only that he will certainly beftonv it ; but that he is the f.urce of it, and that we need only to know him, in oider to be both holy and happy for ever. Jefus, therefore, mull be at InHr.ite Objed ; mud be the true God. For if he were ■k mere creature it would be impious to fuppofe, that everlafting Hfe is infallibly connecfled with the knowledge of him ; that being the prerogative royal of the Great Supreme. As it is written, " This is life eternal, that *' they might know thee the only true God — This is ** the true God and eternal life." Let us now confider the name, God. Our opponents labour to perfuade us that the term God is not a proper name, but an appellative. For this purpofe they have written whole treatifes : nor need we wonder at it. For if it be certain, that the emphatical term is the proper name of the Supreme Being, they mud be obliged to acknowledge Jefus as a truly Divine Perfon ; becaufe they allow, that he is frequently called God, even in fuch pafT.iges as are not fuppofcd to be figurative. They, therefore, will have it, that the f-iblime name is an appellative ; and that it is frequently given to others, belides the Great Supreme. — Without entering into this difpute, we (hall reafon with them on theirown principles. If, then, the term God be an appellative, we may form the fame judgment of it, as of the name king ; which is giren to Jehovah, by way of excellence, but is alfo attributed to others. Now I demand of our adverfaries, fuppofing the words of the text were, * This is life * eternal, that they might know thee the only true King^ SECT. VI. 274 CHAT. HI. * and Jefus Cbi Ifl whom thou haft fent ;' whether they would affirm that the exprefTions, ' only true King/ belong to the Father exclulively of the Son ? or whether they would allow them to belong to both : They would, I am perfuaded, underftand the words thus ; This is life eternal, to know thee the only true King ; thee. Father, with him whom thou haft fent, even Jefus Chrift. Now, as the name GocU on their principles, is no lefs appellative then the term king ; they ought, if they would ad confjlkntly, to underftand the words of our Lord thus: This is life eternal, that they might know thee to be the true God ; thee. Father, with him whom thou haft fent, even jefus Chrift. 7^he adjective /;-«ithct tru5, Tv.w[\ (ignify tlie reality^ rather than the excelUnce of Him to whom it is appHed. Bat if fo it is very eafy to prove that the phrafe, " only true God," Ihould be referred to the Son, as as v/eil as to the Father. For if the charader, *' true ** God/' ought to be confined to the Father; it mu(^ be, either becaufe it is not repeated in the fécond member of the propofition ; or becaufe it is too excellent to belong to the Son. Not the former; for we have already proved, that the analogy of language, as well as the verb knoiuj requires that it fliould be underftood. Nor is it the latter; becaufe it is intended to lignify, a God that is not Jidu'ious ; one that really e^Àjl s . And who can doubt, if Jefiis Chrilt le God, as our opponents themfelvcs acknov/îedge, that he is, in this fenfe, the true God ? — Further : As that God, who is oppofcd to idols, does not exiit merely in the imagination of men, but really and truly ; I demand, v/hether the epithet true, belong to Jefas Chrid, or not ? If not, he is, by the confeifion of our oppofers, a falfe and imaginary god. If it does, he mufl be the only true God. But, perhaps, the word only^ connected with *• true *' God," may give the title an excellence, fo as to render it peculiar to the Father. By no means. For as the term only, determines that of true; fo the term true, limits that oî only. As the adjefiive /n/ * to the great and pernicious error, as they think it, of * believing that God is one, as well in Perfon^ as in * efTence ; and that none but the Father of our Lord * Jefas Chrift is God.'— It is not necefl*ary, to fpeak agreeably to our principles, that we fliould always fully exprefs them. Though we are verily perfuaded of the myflery of the Trinity, yet we may conGilentJy fpeak of the Father, without mentioning the Son ; and of the Son, without mentioning the Father ; and of the Holy Spirit, vv'ithout mentioning either the Father» or the Son. For there is no necclfity that every thing we fay concerning God, fliould be attended with an explicit declaration of this grand myftery. Nor was it neceflary that the apoflle Hiould be fo very apprehenfive of giving occadon to an heretical opinion, by exprefling himfelf as he does, in this pafiage. Such an infinuation, however, comes with a very ill grace from the lips and pens of our opponents, and betrays their inadvertence to a great degree ; for it may be retorted upon, them with the utmoU propriety and unan- fwerable force. Was it proper for the apoltles, was it their duty, to avoid giving occafion to pernicious errors ? Ought they not, then, to have forborn the ufe of fuch hnguage as tended, (Irongly tended, to lead mankind into error and impiety, into blafphetny and idolatry! Could they, without renouncing all concern for the falvation of man ard the glory of (}od, apply to Jefus the peculiar, ellcntial, and incommunicable chara(^ers of SECT. VI» 2$4 CHAP. IV. Jehovah ? Could they, without affronting their Maker and laying a fnare for immortal fouls, apply to Chrilt.. a mere creature, thofe oracles which manifeitly fpeak only of the true God? Or could they, with a due regard to the honour of the Eternal Sovereign and the happinefs of their fellow-creatures, aflert, that Chrift is God ; that *' he is before all things, and that he created all things ;" that he « is the Firft and the Laft ; equal with God, " and one with the Father ;" that before him every <* knee (hall bow,'* and that " all the angels are com- ** manded to worfliip him ?'* Nay, in thofe very pafTagcs tt'hich are produced againft us, the apoffles affociate Chrift with the Father, as a performer of the fame works and a partaker of the fame glories. They affert, that life eternal confifts in the knowledge of Chrifî, no lefs than in that of the Father ; and, in this text, where Jefus is oppofed to all falfe gods, it is faid, " To us there is but one God, the Father, of *' WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE IN HIM ; and OnC *' Lord, Jefus Chrifl, by whom are all things, *' AND w^E BY HIM ;" as if the SoH wcre on a Icvcl with his Father. Could any thing be more anogant and impious than this familiarity, with which Jefus Chrifl treats the Infinite God, if it be true that he is a mere creature ? for it nuft cot be forgotten, that thefe, as well as other exprcfhons of a fimilar kind, were penned by his authority and his direâion. What, fnall the Holy Ghod confine his care to the falvation of our adverfaiies, by avoiding every occafion of betraying them into pernicious errors ; \vhile he takes little or lo heed to preferve us from blafphemy and idolatry ! But, v-hatever had becomiC of us, as there is nothing fo î}recious, nothing {o great, as the incommunicable glories of the Godhead ; it might have been expeded, that the Holy Spirit would take particular care, in penning the New Teftament, that no occafion (liould be ^iven to Chriilians to rob God of his honours, by giving them to a mere creature. SECT. VI. zSc; GHAP. IV. * From whence it appears, that what fonie of the:n * anfwer is idle, when they fuggeit, that the apodle calls ' this one God, *' the Fa-.her," by attribuliouy as they * exprefs it. For if To, he would not have intruded * the vulgar Chriftians, but rather have led them * into a pernicious error. For the people do not knovv^ * in what this attribution conflits ; nay, many among * the learned have never heard it fo much as mentioned.' — The term attribution may, perhaps, be unknown to many ; but the thing is well known, and it is that about which we are chiefly concerned, ^'attribution conflits, in giving a name to one only, which belongs to others. For example : As the name, Lord, belongs to both the Father and the Son, when it is given to Chnll only, it is called an attribution : and ^o, as the name, God, belongs to them both, it is an attribution to give it to tho Father only. Thofe gracious charaders, Rldeemer. and Saviour, are common to the Father with Jefus Chrirt ; when, therefore, it is afHrmed of the latter, ** There is none other name under heaven, given among *' men, whereby we mu(l: be faved ;" it is called an attribution^ or an appropriation of a name, common to the Father and the Son, to the latter only. — Shall we fay, that the Scripture knows nothing of a love of appreciation^ and a love of intention^ becaufe ihefe terms come from the fchools and are not found in the Bible ? The namesy indeed, are not there ; but the idcasy inten- ded by them, are llrongly expreHed in that facred Volume. Tht former conlifh, in loving God with all our hearts ; the latter, in fcrfaking kindred, property, and life itfelf, at his command and for his glory. — So, in the cafe before us. Either, then, cur opponent who makes the objeâion, mexnt only, that the term attribution is ilrange to vulgar Chriftians ; or that the things reprefented by it, was equally unknown. If the term, we have nothing to ûbje6>. If the thing, his miflake may be lec'Ulied by Ihewing, that in thefe words, *' Onr ♦* Lord, Jcfus Chrilï/* there is an attributioû pcrfcdij !î£C T. VI. 286 CHAP. I>. fimilar to that which we find in thefe ; ** Ose God, *' the Father.'* * If the term God, be underflood in this place, as * peculiar to the Father ; either it includes a particular * excellency, and is taken for that Perfcn who is the * fource of the other ; or for the Father, without denot- * ing any particular excellency. If the former^ we have * already fhewed, that they who fpeak thus, either * contradict themfelves, and acknowledge that the * Father only is the Supreme God ; or elfe they fay * nothing to the purpofe. If the latter^ the apolHe mutl < have fpoken impertinently. For the quelHon was not, * whether //;f Father \% but one; but,, whether Gc(i\i but * one; as appears from the preceding words.' — Here we retort upon Crellius. If the term Lord be taken in this place as peculiar to the Son ; either it includes a particular excellency, and is taken for the Perfon who has an original authority ; or for one polTefled of domi- nion, without denoting any particular excellency. Tf \k\ç. former^ they v/ho fpeak thus, either contradict them- ielves, and acknowledge that the Son is the Supreme Lord ; or elfe they fay nothing to the purpofe. If ths latter^ the apoHtle mud have fpoken impertinently. Fj . the queilion v;as not, whether ihe Son is bat one ; bu^ V/hether ths Lord is but one ; as appears from the preceding words. Our adverfaries, if they can, may anfvver this objec- tion : as for us, we are not concerned in it. For what is this argument but a mere fophifm ? The terra God, by being appropriated to the Father, does not lofe its natural fignification. It ftill denotes that infinite excel- lence which didinguifhes his eflence, to whom it is applied, from all that are called gods, or lords, whether on earth, or in heaven. The Father., who is here oppofed, not to the Son, nor to the Holy Ghofl, for that was not the quel'iion ; but, tofalfegods, to magifbates, and to angels, is reprefented as infinitely fuperior to ** all that is called god." But w^hat infurmoiintiibie 3ECT. VI. 28/ CHAP. V. difficulty is there in all this ? Is not Jesus alfo oppofed, in this place, not to th^ Father, lor that was not the queliion ; but to all thoie that ?.re called lords, ^^'hethtr on earth or in heaven ? CHAPrZll V, An Ol)jeollon from Luke i. ^S- anfwered. jfXNOTHER objedion, againfl the doctrine n>aintiined, is forntd by our adverfaries on the following words ; " The Holy GhoU (hall come upon thee, and <* the power of the Highefl: fiiall ovcrlhadow thee ; ** therefore alfj tiia' Holy Thing which fhall be born '< of thee, fhall be called, the Son of God.'* From hence they infer, that the fublime title, Son of God, is founded on the miraculous conception of Jcfus, by the Holy Spirit. Here they demand, how Chriit could be fo called, on account of his wonderful conception, by the power of the Highefl, if he was the Son of God from eternity ? In anfvver to which I obferve ; That God, in this revelation of his will, accomodates his language to the capacities cf the perfon to whom he makes known his gracious defjgns. Thus he had frequently done to the Tewifh prophets. When he revealed to thofe holy mea the calling of the Gentiles, it was often under fuch images as were borrowed from the ancient fanduary, with which they v/ere well acquainted, lit informed them, that *' an altar fhould be ereded in the midfl of *' Egypt ;'* and that, from the riling to the fetting fan *' incenfe fhould be offered with a pure offering.'» Such ideas were familiar to them ; and, therefore Ijpiriiual things and future events were revealed to th SrCT. VI. 288 CHAP. V. prophets, and the church of old, under thefe images — So the angel, who appears to Mary, fpeaks in a fimilar way. He might, if" he had pîcafed, have defcribed Jefus Chrifl: as the Mediator, who fhould reconcile heaven and earth. He might have reprefented him to the virgin mother, as an univerfal Monarch, according to the oracle of Daniel ; as a fpiritual King, who (hould reign over the hearts and confciences of men ; and as Lord of the univerfe, having all authority in heaven and in earth. Thefe things, however, he does not mention ; becaufe it was expedient that fhe fhould be gradually led into the myfleries of the kingdom of God. He, there- fore, fpeaks of the re-efiablifhment of David's kingdom, which was at that time the objed of the nation's hope, and mod familiar to the mind of a Jew. " The Lord «* God," fays Gabriel, " fhall give unto him the throne ** of his father David ; and he fliall reign over the houfe ** of Jacob forever.'' — Now, as the eternal Sonfhip of Jefus is one of the mod fublime and myfterious dodrines in the whole Book of God, we have no rcafon to be furprifed if the heavenly meffenger, in his converfe with Mary, did not intend, by any thing he faid of the Lord Mefiiah as the Son of God, t© declare the proper ground of his Divine filiation ; but only to inform her, in general, of his infinite dignity, and that his filial relation to the Father fhould be attefled in his miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit. Again : The Scripture frequently makes ufe of fuch words to exprefs an event, as feem to denote the caufe. So the evangelifl fays, *' Therefore they could not *' believe, hecaufe that Efaias faid again — ." Thus the exprefîions on which the obje()\, figjnified his being produced hj • God the Father, it would a-rrec to all creatures 11 it lij^nified * only fomc imperfedl likentfs to the nature of the Fe thee.*' As if he had faid, Lord, 1 love thee ; and thou muft .'know that 1 love thee ; for thou art not ignorant of any thing. — I'o fuppofe the apollle was under a midake, when he fo exprefled himleif, has no fhadow of reafon. i3ecaufeif he was, he uttered blafphemy, by attributing «omnifcience to Jtfus Chiiit; which belongs only to *God ; and becaufe his holy and humble Mailer would not have rewarded blafphemy by faying, »* Feed my •♦ fheep." How can they reconcile thofe paffages which inform 'tis, that Chrift dots nothing of hinifclf; that he piayed at the grave of Lazarus ; and that the Father always hears him; with others svhich reprefent him, as working miracles by his own will and his own puwer ? H he be a mere man he depends on God for hrs exiflencc every moment, and was entirely beholden to the Great Sovereign for every exertion of power in the perfornjancc of his miraciilous works But if fo, how carre he ro fpeak with fuch an air of Divine authority and of Divine power, *' I WILL, Bb THOU CLKAN ?" Had Mofes, or Paul, expreifcd himfelf after this manner, he would, vndoi btedly, have been guilty of blafphemy. Nor can The diflinéîion between office and nature, be of the leaft iervice on this occafion. Nor is their hvpothefis any better calculated to Tccorcile ■ hat the Sciipture afferts about the perpetuity of out Lord's kingdom, with hat it fays corcerning his /fe/ivtrit'g of if up to the Father. For as according to 'hem. he does not reign by tiatvte, but only in virtue of his r^rcs; it dots not appear how his kingdom can i)e eierrul. Nay, it neceflari.ly follows thai it muft éLZ'T. VI. 301 cifAi». v:. corne to a period, if his offices ào Ço. — The feemin^ cjntradiâions, therefore, between the different pafTagcs, remain in all their force, as to any rehef wliich can be afforded by their iiypothefis. If, then, we be c&S.z pcrfecliy to reconcile thcfe apparently jarring texts, tli^y mull allow that oar fcntiiiisnis have a manifcit and gr<:^i advantage over theirs. Though the dilhn than to hearken to tlie voice of unerring Wifdom and Infinite Authority, with an implicit fubmifilon and an unfufpedlng rehance. There are two kinds of knowledge ; one ofcuriofity, the other of praflice: and this di(tin<5tion takes place in all arts and fciences. Thus, for inftance, in the art of navigation we muft know, what a fhip is ; which fcas are fafe, and which dangerous ; at what time fuch a fea is navigable, and when it is not fo. This is efiential tu the end of navigation ; and this I call, a knowledge of fra^iee. — But it may be intjuired. Why the fea is fait ? What is the reafon that fuch a fea has its flux and reflux more than another? And why fuch particular winds prevail more in this climate than they do in that ? This I call, a knowledge of curiofity: and it would be very abfurd to fail of reducing the other to pradiice, becaufe thefe queftions contain fuch difliculiies as are unanfwer- able. — Again : I refolve to eat my common food, and, fometimes, when I have no appetite ; becaufe I know that without food my ilrength and life mufl fail. But were I to defer taking the necefl^ary refrefiiment, till I knew how the vaiious tranfmutations are performed ; or till I was able to comprehend, how the food is turned into chyle ; the chyle into blood ; and the blood into fiefh ; all the world would laugh at my folly : while I fliould Lifer the pains cf hunger, perhaps, the agonies of death, notwithftanding any pretended importance of fuch inquiries. In the affairs of morality and divinity, there are alfo two kinds of knov/ledge ; the one of praâice, the other of curiofity. To ^luorjk'p Jcfus Chrill, 1 muft know that he is God. To put my truji in him, I mufl look upon him as God ; becaufe it is written, " Curfed be *' the man that trufleth in man, and maketh flefh his ** arm, and whofe heart denarteth from JtiiovAH." But it is not necciTary that I fliould knov/ the modusy and the adorable fecrets, of the hypodatical union. As to what is^raaicalf it is this : To knov/ that Chrid is the A a ^ f^ECT. VI. -ÎOÔ CHAP. VII. ,J Son of God, wliom all rational creatures are bound to love, obe}'^, and adore — 'I'hat He created the heavens and the eanh, and by Him all things conflit — And that tie is over all, God blefled for ever. But fpeculative and metaphylical inquiries into thefe things, belong to a knowledge of cf/ri^/?/;^; and are no other than bold and j^refumptuous endeavours, to penetrate the unfearchables <>i the Divine Eflence and the Divine Perfonalities. God's defgn, In that Revelation which he has given, ilexin3 doubts, the volume of Scripture muft hav€ been SECT. VI. 307 CHAP. VIU of an immenfe bulk, to have provided folutions for them all. It was not necejfary. For to know the modus of the grand reality would, perhaps, only indulge our curioTity and flatter oar j)ride ; vhcreas our acquaintance v/ith the fad^ ferves for pra<51ice ; and it is practice, not the gratification of our curiofity, at which the Holy Spirit aims. -Happy would it he, if all teachers of divinitv were careful to diltinguilli between thof^; things which are pradical and necefiary, and thofe which are curious and merely fpeculative. They would be furprifed to find, by this diflindion, that a great part of mankind fpend their time in fceking a kind of knowledge, which is of little or no ufe — A kind of knowledge, which would neither meliorate their tercperc, nor amend their conduâ ; neither increafe their devotion to God, nor promote benevolence to man. They would fee, that philofophica! divines lofe their way, the v^ry fir(l flep they tske, in fearching after the truths of falvation ; b^caufe they fj end their time and pains, in attempting to grafp incomprehenfibles, iiiftcad of inHlling upon what is pUinly revealed. As they who lived under the legal oeconomy had, in comparifon with us, but faint reprefcntations oï ths reality of the incarnation ; though agreeable to the plan of Divine wifdom, refpeding the P.ate of the church at that time, and had regard to a clearer manifcRaiion of that capital truth under tlie gofpel-difpenfation ; how do v/e know but our prefcnt ignorance of the manner of that myfterious facfl, may have a relation to the future life } For the knowledge of the people of God does not only vary, according to the diifcrence of the Divine œcofjo- mics, under which they live ; but according to the different 7?^î/r in which they are. A child, forinftance, has no reafon to be offv^nded, or grieved, becaufe he cannot comprehend how the empires of this world are governed ; any more than the ancient Ifraelites had, becaufe they were not favoured with all the light and ^raccof ih^ Me/Hah^s kingdom. The condition of men,. SECT. VI. 308 CHAP. vn. xvhile on earth, like that of a child in the fimile, does not permit them to penetrate the myfteries of religion to that degree, of which the human mind fhall be capable in a future ftate ; though even then it will be impoflible to ** ftnd out the Almighty to perfection." Our ideas proceed from three fources, the fenfes, reafon, and faith ; and thefe are mutually dependent, though their ufes and jurifdiiflion are different. The fenfes furnifh reafon with her materials, and reafon furniflies faith with her principles. The fenfes never rife fo high as reafon, nor is it proper that reafon fliould rife fo high as faith. Reafon judges of that which the fenfes cannot perceive. -She tells us, for example, that there is matter between the earth and the heavens ; though this matter does not appear. And fo it is the province and prerogative of divine faith, to judge of thofe things which furpafs the powers of reafon. God •afferts and faith teaches, tliat " the Word was made *' flefh ;" though reafon, of herfelf, perceives nothing of it ; nay, though flie ftrongly objed againd it. And why ? Becaufe faith is fuperior to reafon, as reafon is faperior to the fenfes. As, therefore, it would be vain and abfjrd, for a man to endeavour to difcover that by the fenfes, v/hich reafon cannot develope ; fo it is prepoderous and arrogant for reafon to determine upon thofe myfterious realities, which lie within the province of faith — even of that faith, which entirely depends on the Divine teflimony, and is altogether diredted by it. For as the errors of the fenfes, which are the firft means of knowledge, are correded by reafon ; fo the mifiakes cf reafon fliould be rectified by faith. Let reafon, then, lead me to faith, as my fenfes lead me to reafon ; but let reafon be filent when faith fpeaks, as my fenfes are filent when reafon didates. For, certainlj'-, if reafon convince me of many truths, contrary to what my fenfes fuggeft; if it xonvince me, for inftance, that the fan is bigger than the earth, though my eyes teach me the contrary ; faith may teach us a variety of importani CECT. Vï. 309 CHAP. VIU things, which rcàfon could never diCcover, and which, when difcovered, llie cannot comprehend. Here, perhaps, it may be faid, * As the general * agreement of men, in alTenting to a propofition, is a ' (trong prefumptive proof of its truth ; fo a general * reluctance to receive it, is an equaf evidence of its * fdh'ehood. The do<5irine of the incarnation, confe- * CJuently, having fomethiog in it repugnant to the minds * of men in general, ought to be 1 ejected as void of ' truth * — But there is a vAiï difference between rejei^ing a principle, as contradiflory to fome knozcn, elldllifosd truth ; and finding it natnraHy incomprehsnfihh. i'hc former is a character of its falfehood ; the hitler of its fublimity— There are fome unirerfal repugnancies of the fenfes, of the imagination, and of the mind itfelf, which do not concUide againd the reality of their ohjevfls. For example : The /en/es ttll thofe that view, from the g'"ound, an Egyptian pyramid, that the fummit of it is almodlike the fpire of a fleej^le; and tiiough all mankind t/ere to fee it. iri that fituation, tlisy would univerf^ily T«gree that it terminates in a point. But reafon, judging of the diltance and proportion of the obje6l, as well aJ being afTified by experiment, correds the error; and, rotv.'i'fhftanding this univerfal language of the fenfes, convinces you, that the top of the pyramid is a platform cipable of holding fifty men. — Human ima^hiatton has an averfion, univerfally, to reprefent to itf';lf men, who, wi-hout filling, have their feet diametrically oppofite to ours. Yet reafon correds this error, and puts it beyond a doubt, that there are antipodes — The muifls of all riiankind are naturally fhocked, at which philofophers and geometricians afTert, concerning the infinite divifi. bility of matter : and yet, on inquiry, we cannot but aiTent to the truth of the ftran^e affertion, notwithfland- ing this univerfal repugnancy. — May we not, then, con- clude, thatthough all men found fomethingoffenfivc to them. in this propofiiion, ** The Word was made flcfh ;" or, * Cod was mads man ;* yet faith would have a right to, SECT. Vi. 310 CHAP. VII. corretfl this univerfal repugnancy, as reafon does that of the fenfes and imagination ? Many learned and pious men have laboured hard to find out pertinent fimilitudes, by which to illultrate a fubjeil which is unfearchably deep and beyond all comparifon. Such attempts, however well-intended, cannot fail of proving abortive, and are orten injurious to the ciufe they were defigned to ferve. — Thefe com- parifons are not adapted to anfwer the end, as they fpeak only to our imagination. Now it is not the itnaginalion, but reafon that muft be fatlsfied. For as thofe emblems, under which I may reprefent to myfelf the Divine Being, have but little evidence to convince me of his exiftcnce ; fo the images, by which the myftery before us may be reprefented, have but little force to perfuade mc of its truth. — Befides, thefe comparifons give occafion to our opponents, to examine and expofe the difparities which attend them ; which muft necefîarily be both numerous and (Iriking, by reafon of the immenfe difproportion which there is between fimilitudes taken from finite creatures, and the infi- nite Creator. On thefe difparities the enemies of the truth raife imaginary triumphs ; and improve them 1> blind the fimple and feduce the ignorant, who do not well underftand the defign of fuch comparifons ; which was, not the convinlon of the mind, but the ajfifiance of the imagination. — Another reafon why thefe comparifons appear to us injurious to the caufe of truth, is, their being intended to lefTen the dililculties attending the grand raydery, by difcovering the manner of it, which God has not revealed. This, fo far as it is fuppofed to operate, fuperfedes the neceffity of an unrefervcd confi- dence in the divine teilimony, concerning this profoundly myfterious fubjeâ: ; and, in a meafure, the end of Revelation itfelf: which is calculated to humble us, by prefenting us with objeds which we cannot comprehend, as well as to enlighten us iii fuch things as are necefUry. to be known. â£CT. VI. 311 CHAP. vir. The only ufe T would make of fuch comparifons, is» to alfcoTer the difFerence between intuitive and abllracfted knowledge. I call that iniuiihry which arifes from fight and experience ; and ^\\2i\, ahJlraSedy which reiults from reafoning and teflinionj'. For inftancc : A man, blind from his birth, has only an abllrafied knowledge of many agreeable and wonderful objefïs around him, of which perfons in common have an intuitive knowledge. Now, fuppofing you fpeak to fuch an one about light and colours ; about the brightnefs of the fun, in his meridian glory, or concerning the vegetable beauties of fpring ; his ideas ot vhat you mean are all confufed. Nay, if you enter into particulars with him, on fubjcdts of this kind, he will confider many things you fay, as quite inconfillent one with another. He will not know how, and he will think it impoflible for any other perfon, to reconcile fo many apparent contradicflions. Whereas if you mention the fevetal particulars to one who enjoys the bleflîng of fight, and, efpecially, if he hare been Itudious of nature ; he underltands what you fay, and has not the lead doubt in the cafe. The grand reafon of this difference is, thofe things which are incomprehenfible, when they are known merely with an abflraded knowledge, appear in a very different light when tJiey are known intuitively^ and, frequently, the difficulties we fuppofe to be in the objcSsy are in our own minJsf and arife from our manner of knowing them. Hence it appears, that difficulties and feeming contra- didions may be found in the mo(i common objeds, when they are known merely in an abftradted way ; and that the fuppofed inconfiltencies vanifli. fo foon as they come to be viewed intuitively. We have, therefore, little reafon to be furprifed, if, when contemplating the my fiery of the incarnation, difficulties occur and feeming contra- diélions appear ; fince in the prefent itaie, our knowledge of it is purely abllraéled The two foilowing reflections ffiall conclude this Treatifc. As there are difncuiiies in almoll every fubjeft SfECT. VI. 31a CHAP. VII. of inquiry, it is by a comparative viczv that wife men have always been determined to take one fide of a c]uef- tion, rather than the other. This is a certain lule of good fenfe, and fhould be followed in the cafe before us. We ought not to rejeâ: the dodrine of the incarnation as enoneous, becaufs difficulties attend it; nor becaufc very piaulible objections have been made againfl it. It is the fault of young pcrfons, and the cha'radter of rafii and weak underflandings, that are not capable of viewing feveral objeds, and their relations, at oi-ce ; to determine qucltions of importance, on the appearance of an infu- perablc difficuhy ; or tlfe it is an evidence of a negligent and lazy temper, which will not permiit them to examine things maturely. We ought here, as it is a quedion of infinite importance, to the glory of God and the falvation of men ; to compaie arguments with arguments, and difficulties with difficulties, and that with diligence and prayer. — On iuch an examination it will be found, that the molt plaufible arguments of our adverfuries confift, either in nietaphyHcol fj*eculations ; or in fuch pafTages of Scripture as explain themifelves, by cihers, to a very different fenfe • whereas ours are formed on fuch Divine declarations as are clear and exprefs, frequently repeated and clofely connedied ; fo that either the obvious and natural meaning of the terms muft utterly be rejeded, and then any exprefiions will ferve any purpoie ; or our inter- pretation muli be received. And as to the d'i^iculties it w;ill appear, that: the moli formidable of thofe v^hich are ftarted by our opponents, are taken, either from their being incapable of comprehending the myllery ; or from the gioflcs of fume wiiimfical fchoolmen, v.'hich we freely give up and heartily dcfpife, as much as our opi ofers themfeives. But the difficulties which we improve againft them, arife from a coullderation of iuch things as are abfolutely effentlal to the Scriptures ; which are, truth, perfp'cuity^ and p'leiy Fur without thefe the Bible is uhworihy of God ; deiHtute ot thefe, whoever attributes it' to Him, reproaches his Maker. Uiffi.cuhies multiply S3:CT. VI. 313 GITA?. Tir. and load ihcîr hypothefîs, by conHJerin^, tl^e :^vrAo'^j of Jaith — tliat by wiiich God'^Iove to mankind is moil highly recommended — that on which are founded the reality of ihe atonement by Jcfus Ghrifl, and all the merit of his death — and, above all, that which ths Epoilles, who were inf^^hed v.r.d commiiTioned to reveal and pubiifîi the myfleries of the kingdom of heaven, have rrroft faid, repeated, urged ; and upon which they have grounded the prr.(flice of worfiiinping Jefus Chrift, the Son of God, as Over all, God blessed for EVER. So that ihc diuiculiics which we object, are fuch as afki^l the IjiBLTi, as a Divine Revelation ; and Christianity, a^ a Divine Religion. Again : Though the Sociohn interpretatio'n of con- troverted texts, is, in many infîances, the mod probable th.at can be given, in oppcfition to the arguments v/c form upon them, in defence of our Lord's Divinity; yet they appear unnatural, far-fetciied, and invented merely 10 ferve an hypotheiis. So that, as we are not required to interpret the oracles of God by a Spirit of divination, nor to decypher unfearchable riddles ; we cannot br under any obngation to knov/, rhuch lefs to approve, fuch refined fubtikies as are calculated to lov/er, to obfcure, to deftroy, thofe fablime ideas which the Scriptures give 'iS, of the eflcnticd and mediatorial glories of Jefiis Chriil. The former of thffe reilefVions proves the lr:i.'/j of our principles; the lauer diev/s ù\2 faj'ely of them. The one kr.isfies our fnhuis, t}\2'o&.cr our con/dences; and both togedier give a ]ui\ idea of the dcfjfn of this Treatile, which I nov/ dedicate to the eternal honour of my D; vim e Redeemer, ttie adorable Immanuel. — ♦ Forgive, * O GOD, the trnperfeclions of the work, and the fms * of the author ! Eilablifh and fpread the infallible truths * of thy gofpcl ; that as thou hafl be.= n pîeafed to manifcfl * ihyfdf in the fiein, all ilelh may behold thy ^lory and * Gjw at thv fooiilool ! Amen.' A TABLE OF- THE TEXTS, Move cr lejs Tllof.rated in this U'orl. GENESIS. JEREMIAH, Chap \'crfe Page CIup . Verfe Page %z - 9, 10, II - 95. 6 i5 -21 219 17 - 5 305 EXODUS. 17 - 9> 10 61 3 -2,3,4 21'') MICAH, 3 -15 , . 70 4 - n 219 4 • 13 20J 20^ - 3 - 5^.- 53 Si, a ZECHARIAH. 7 KIXCS, 6 -5 205 8 - 3? 61 MAriHEVV. PSALMS, 4 - 10 85. 271 6. 'J ' 17. 18, 28 7 - i5 23 82 - 6, 7, 56 2C7 8 - 3 34» ç6 - 5-13 18 - 20 - 32 227 78 97 97 - 1—5 -6,7.9 - - 23, 6, 7 - 197 205 206 — :oo 28 28 - 19 - :o 187 227 ^10 1 - - 1/0 Z?7A'^. ISAIAH. I - 16,17 - IS a34 287—298 2 - 11 32. 47 I - 7^ - 195, <5, 7 6 ' 3 cor 24 - ir 119, 20 35 - 4 * 3 - I ..28 '3. iy5 70.Y//. 4 -J - 9 '-:8 I - 1,2,3 - 153— Ï7 2 40 - lo - 54 72. 3 1 - i3 113 A "-< - 8 - i 5. ^19 I - .9 ÎU 43 - 11 65 3 - 31 1 a8, 9. 135 44 - 6 4> 67 5 - 17,18 231, a 45 -5.^,7 4? 6 - 58 135 45 . 21, 2 - 6 5, 6, 7 6 - 62 127. 13a. 138 '^ j * -3 -9 8 - 58 - 144—147 60 - 1 39 lo - 3^ aa;, 30 10 - 35, 6 293 JEREMIAH. 12 - 37—41 20c -204. 412, 10 - II 53. 82 14 I 269 14 - 22 82 14 • 9 186, 7 A TABLE OF T«E TEXTS, JOHN, PHILÎPPIAKS. 14 - 10 199 2 - 6 71—76. 173. 2;o 14 - a3 33. 30^ 2 - 6, 7, 8 147— i3 15 - 4 a6i 16 -12 254 COLOSSIANS. 16 17 - i8 - 3 Ï-7 256— 2; 6 I - 16 59. 22'), 7 17 - 5 185 / TIMOTHY. ^9 - 7 231 20 - 28 25 60, 1 3 -1') - 104 — 109 ai - 17 6 - ij, i6 26a, 3. 2,é ACTS, TITUS, 2 - 16. 17 211 - - 13 - 234 10 - a6 83.4 47- 23i ïi - 22 H EBP EM'S. 16 - 31 28Z 1 -4.5.6 - 224 20 - 28 228 I I 6 - 165. 204 — 209 - 7. 8 - jgy ROMANS . I - »" - 59 1 I -3 - 18 - 4 4,5. 292 ^95 I - 10, 11, 12 - 19; — 200 - 5 - 165. 6 8 - 3i 9'- 93.4 5 - II - 2/4 9 5 ^^35' 292 7 - a^, 27 - 2Si u - 11 29 ^.^-'ifr^. / COniNTHI. ^Yo\ 1 - 17 - 1:7- -78 1 -13 125 no. ir I - 21 / PETE p. I - -3 113 I - 11 - I4i 2 2 "O, 60 2, - 11 280 / yoHx. 4 - 15 lC^, 2 3 - I - 113 8 - 4. 5. 6 : 77-:87 5 - 'U - 234. 267 15 - 24 300 Ï5 - 47 1 2:, 1 35>''= .8.140,1 PEE EL ATI ox. - 23 - (i--6j EPHESIAIJ ■S". 13 - 8 - 144:5-^^ 1 - 10 1-6, 7 V - 10 - 84 4 . 6 778 - 13 - C:~-:i 4 - e, 9 ao, 9 irralum, Prge 8j, line 4 from th Î bottom, for.-, .-./v.'.' r .- . Dd 2 SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. Rev. JAMES ACERCROMBÎE, Miniflcr of the Epfcopal Ciuuch, Philadelphia Mr. Ifaac Abraham, Delaware County John Ackermnn, Burlington, New-Jcrfcy Ifaac Adams, Heidelberg, Thomas Adams, Efq. Judge of the Court of C. Pieas Burlington, New-Jeifey Mr. Ifaac Agins, Uwchian, Pennfylvania Abraham Albertfon, Piitsgrovc, New-Jerfcy George Allen, Mount- Holly, Ne.v-Jerfey Robert Anderfon, jun. Student at Rhode Iflanil College Rev. EiiHia Andrews, Templeton, Maflachufetts Chriftopher Appleton, Philadelphia William Aflimead, do. Fortune A tus, do. His Excellency Joseph Bloomfield, Efq. GoTCrnor of the State of New-Jerfey Mr. George A. Baker, jun. Philadelphia Henry Baker, jun. do. John L. Baker, do. Rev. Lutlicr Baker, Warren, Rhode Ifland Aaron Ball, Efq. Long Hill, Morris County, N. Jerfcy r^Ir. Jofcph Barber, Burlington, do. John M. Barber, do. do. William Barns, Philadelphia Mrs. I'lartha Barnett, do. Capt. Stephen Beafly, do. 2 copies Rev. James E. Beach, Bridgport, Connedicut Mrs. Margaret Beaks, Philadelphia William Benedia, Efq. Bridgeport, Conneaicut Mr. Nathaniel Billings, Scotfplains, New-Jerfey Thomas Billings, Philadelphia John Black, Tutor in the Univerfity of Pennfylr. SU3SCRIB^]:S NAMES'. Mr» Benjamin Blackford, Burlington, New-Jcifcy Jlev. Samuel Blatchford, Bridgeport, ConntvTticut ; Mr. Jolm Bleyler, Philadelphia Rev. John Boggs, Welch-Tradl, 6 copies i Mr, William Bofv/eil, Philadelphia I Noah Bo wen, Deerfield, New-Jerfey ' Obed Bowen, do. ' Rev. Beverly Booth, Surry Countv, Virginia, 2 copies Anthony Tate BoyJ, M. D. Philadelphia ' ' Mr. Jacob Boyer, do. Lucius Bollcs, Rhode IHand College ; Jnnies Braden, Frederick Countv, ^vlaryland J Rev. Jofhua Bradley, A. B. Aflidant Mini'ftcr of the fécond Baptift Church, Newport, 11. Ifland, 9 copies j Rev. John Brice, "Warnington, Pennfylvania V; Mr. Robert Brov;n, Greenfburg j Mrs. Catherine Burkcloe, do. : Elizabeth Button, Philadelphia 1 Rev. Abfaloni Butler, Baltimore County Mrs. Mary Burton, Pljiladelphia Mr. Benjamin White Call, Phyfician, Newport. R. IÙ. Robert Campbell, New Jerfey Ifaac Carr, Philadelphia Mrs. Margaret Carty, Burlington, Nevz-Jerfey Rev. Buckley Carll, Piitsgrove, do. Mr, John Carll, do. Obadiah, Carutliers, Pittsgrcve, do. Donald Catnach, Philadelphia James Center, Nevvport, Rhode liland John Chalk, Circulating Library, Philadelphia John Chapman, do. Jofeph Cheney, Rhode Ifland College William Cheavens, Philadelphia Podhumous Claggett, Wafhington County John Clane, Deerfieid, New-Jerfcy Francis Clark, Burlington, New-Jerfey Mrs. Anna Clark, Philadelphia James Clark; Efc^. Fairfield, New-Jerfey D d3 9U£ scum ERS NAMES. Mr. Nathaa CoRibes, Merchant, Lamberion, N. J. George Coome?, Pitts^rove, do. Rev. Henry Cook, A. M. Metuclnn, do. Mr. Dennis Coles, Sr.r«i rplali)'^, do. John Collard, Fiiilaclelpi/ia Eliza Cornog, Philadelphia Mr. Jonathan Cornvvell, Decificld, Ncw-Jerfejr Efek Cox, Philadelphia William Coxe, Efq. Burlington, New-Jcrfey Charles Crawford, Efq. Piiiladclphia Mr. John Crifman, Vincent Cumpflon, ?»îerchant, Philadelphia Mr. Gardner Daggett, Student at Rhode Ifiand, Col. Elkanak K, Dare, Bridgetown, New-Jerfey Ezra Darby, Efq. Scotfplains, do. I\ir, Mark Darrak, at Uwchlan, Pennfylvania John Davenport, Philadelphia Rev. John Davenport, Deer field, New-Jerfey Ann Davis, Philadelphia, Mrs. Hannah Davis, New-Jerfey Catharine Davis, do. Mr. Thomas Davis, Front flrect, Philadelphia, Rees Davis, Upper-Merriam, Pennfylvania Thomas Davis, Vincent Artemas Dean, Student at Rhode Ifland College Col. William De Hart, Morrifto.vn, New-Jerfey Mr. Francis Deluce, Baltimore Lewis Dewecs, Philadelphia Jofeph Dolby, do. Dinah Dorfey, Anne Arundcll County, Maryland Alexander Dunn, Efq. Pifcatawa, New-Jerfey Mr. Lemuel Edwards, New-Jerfey Mifs. Sukey Ellery, Newport, Rhode Ifland Pvev. William Filing, Paftor of Trinity Chapel, Philada. Andrew Elliot, Fairfield, Connedticut Charles Ellis, Efq. Burlington, New-Jerfey Mrs. Elizabeth Englifh, Burlingtoi); New-Jerfey SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. Mr, Ferdinand Ellis, Student at Rhode Ifiand College, John Ellis, Preacher of the Gofpel, Philadelphia Dr. Philemon Elmer, Weftlield, Ne\v-Je:ley Mr. Eli Elmer, Bridgetown dc. John Elton, Efq. Burlington, New-Jerfey Mr. Melatiah Everet, Student at Rhode Ifland Col. Capt. Nathaniel Falconer, Philadelphia Mr. William Falconer, Alexander Finider, Baltimore, Theodore Fofter, Efq. S. U. S. Rhode Ifland Mr. John Fox, Philadelphia Thomas Foxail, Baltimore, Rev. J. Flood, Milford, Delaware, 9 copies Mr. Jonathan Freeman, Newbury, New- York Stale Benjamin French, Burlington, New-Jerfey Rev. Richard Furman, Charlelton, S. Carolina 12 cops. l>îr. Furman, do. do. \lr. Levi Garret, Philadelphia Benjamin Garrifon, Deerfield, New-Jcrfey Daniel Garrifon, do. do. Davis Garrifon, do. do. Eph.raim Garten, do. do. Jonathan Garten, do. do. Brice Gafiav/ay, Anne Arundel County, Maryland Jofeph Gibfoii, Philadelphia Ifaac GifFord, Burlington, Nev/-Jerfey Benjamin Glcafon, Student at R. Ifland College John Godfrey, do. Elirtia Gordon, Efq. near Euflletown Mr. Simeon Green, Student at Rhode Ifland College John Grant, Shoemaker, Philadelphia Peter Grant, Book-binder, do. John Grant, do. do. Rev. Aflibel Green, D. D. do. The Hon. William Griffith, Efq. Judge of the Circuit Court of the United States, Burlington, Ncw-Jerfey Mifs Eliza Griffith, Philadelphia Mrs. Sarah Griffith, Philadelphia SUSSCRIBIUS* y J MES. Mr. Howard Griffith, Montgomery County, Maryland Rev. Peter Groom, Weft-Creek, New-Jerfey Mr. John Gwaltney, Virginia Mr. David Hall, Philadelphia Martha Hall, do. •Mr. Jacob Han, Pittfgrove, New- Jerfey John Hanley, Philadelphia Elizabeth Hallach, Baltimore Rev. Andr. Harpending, Shaftfbury, Vermont, 9 cops. Mr. Jonathan Harris, Deerfield, New-Jerfey Jofeph Hart, Efq. Bucks County, Pennfylvania Capt. Aaron Hawley, do. Mr. Aaron Hawley, Connedicut Tifdal Hedgcr, Student at Rhode Ifland College Robert Henderfon, Philadelphia Rev. John Hickenan, Culpepper County, Virginia Mr. Benjamin Plobart, Rhode liland College Mrs. Eleanor Hockley, Philadelphia Mr. David Holman, Rhode Ifland College Silas Hough, M. D. Montgomery County, Pennfylr. Mr. Bethanah Hodgkinfon, Burlington, New-Jerfey George Smith Houflon, Philadelphia James Houflon, do. John How, Burlington, New-Jerfey Col. Benjamin Hovey, Shenango, New- York, State Capt. Ezra Hubbel, Connedticut Mr. Robert Hude, New Brunfwick, New-Jerfey Hull, M. D. Fairneld, Connedicut Rev. Afa Hylyard, A. M. Bottle-Hill, New-Jerfey JefTe Hyatt, Frederick County, Maryland Eli Hyatt, do. do. Mr. William Innes, fen. Philadelphia Maj. Jefle John, Uvvxhlan, Pennfylvania Mr. James John, Vincent do. David John do. do. Mary Jackware, Philadelphia Rebecca Jackway, do. Mr. Morgan Jsckway, ç}iO. David James, Deerfield, New-Jerfey Rev. I. Janeway, Philadelphia Mr. Paul Javett, Student at Rhode Ifland College Kenneth Jewell, Philadelphia Rev. Evan Johns, Conneclic.t Mr. John Johns, Chambeifburg, Pennfylvania Ifaac Johnfon, Philadelphia Ezekiel Johnfior, Burlington, New-Jerfey Henry Jones, Virginia Mifs Hannah Jones, Philadelphia Capt. Lloyd Jones, do. Mr. Philip Jones, do. Robert Jones, do. Samuel P. L. Jones, Schoolmafîer, Philadelphia Mifs S u fan n ah Jones, Delaware Mr. Thomas Jones, Liack-wa!nut Bottom, 5 copies Mrs. Eliza Jofiah, Philadelphia Mr, Ifrael Joflen, Deerlield, New-Jeifcy Samuel Jofl.n, do. do. Jeremiah Joflen, do. do. Ifaac Jyflup, New-Jerfey Mrs. Jane Kelfe, Philadelphia Rev. Robert Kerr, New- York Sta'C Mr. Benjamin Keyfer, Philadelphia Andrev/ Kiingle, do. î.îr. Henry Labau£h, at Uwchlan, Pcnnfylvania Toihua H. Langley, Piovidence, Rhode Ifland ^/r/.*Eliza LafTillee, Philadelphia Rev. Lebbeus Lathrop, Mount Bethel, New-Jerfey Mr. Norton Lawrence, Fairfcld, do. Jofeph Lawfon, Philadelphia Dr. William Lehman, do. Mr. Jofeph Leder, do. Maj. John Levering, Ridge, 9 copies Jofeph Lewis, Efq. Morris -town, New Jerfcy Mr, Daniel Lewry, Philadelphia SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES, Eliza Ann Levvry, Philadelphia Mr. Thomas Lloyd, at the Fort, Chefter County Mifs Ann Lounfberry, Philadelphia Mr. Lemuel Lovell, Pittftown, County of Ranfeleer, New- York, 9 copies Rev, Shubael Lovell, Rowley, MafTachufetts • Mtfs Abby Lovcland, Philadelphia Mrs. Catharine Loxley, do. Mr. Thomas Ludlam, Weft Creek, New-Jerfey Maj. Benjamin Ludlow, Morris County, New-Jerfey Mr. John M'Gowan, Mount-Holly James M'Glathery, Edward Marks, \ irginia William M llvaine, M. D. Burlington, New-Jerfey Jofeph M' llvaine, Efq. Recorder of the City of Bur- lington, New-Jerfey Mr. William Marten, Philadelphia Mibfam Martien do. John Fleetwood îvlarfh, Efq. New-York Rev. James M'Laughlin, Hiiltown, 2 copies Mr. Thomas Mathias, Hiiltown John Matthews, Philadelphia John M'Mullin, do. George Maris, Baltimore Rev. Jonathan Maxcy, D. D. Prefident of the Univcr- fity at Providence, Rhode Ifland A fa Meffor, A. M. ProfeiTor of Languages in the Univerfity at Providence, Rhode Ifland Mr. John M'MilHn, Walhington, Pennfylvania Alfred Metcaif, Pvhode Ifland William Moody, Baltimore Elijah Moore, New-Jerfey Daniel Moore, Dcerfield, Nev/-Jerfey, Deac. Enos Miles, Chcfl:er County Mr. Mofes Millin, Rhode Ifland John Mitchell, Burlington, New-Jerfey Rev. John Mafon, New- York, 3 copies J. Miller, do. 2 copies Mr. Silas Mulfçrd; New-Jcrf^y subscribeâ'S' names. Mr. Tfaac Mcars, Connelly Ville Samuel Mecklin, Philauelphia Andrew Mein, Burlington, New-Jerfey John Moorc, Philadelphia Jolm Muncy, do. Ifar.c Murphy, New-Jerfey Mrs. Mary Nealc, Burlington, New-Jerfcy î\Ir. John Neale, do. do. John Ncai, Philadelphia John Nice, Jofiah Nichols, Deerfield, New-Jerfey Jona'chan Nichols, do. do. Davis Nirhols, dn. an. Azael Nicliols, do. do. William Norton, Student at Rhode Tfland College Jofcph Ncurfe, Efq. Regi(ter of the Treaf. Wafhington Col. Thomas Noyés, Weflerly, Rhode liland Mr. William Oakford, Philadelphia Samuel Oakford, do. Jofeph Ogden, Efq. Fairfield, New-Jerfey Mr. Thomas Ogden, do. do. Rcv. William Parkinfon, Chaplain to Congrcfs Mr. Calvin Park, Rhode Iiland College James D. Park, New-Jerfey George Pavrisj Deerfield, New-Jtrfcy John Peckworth, Philadelphia Mark Peek, Deerfield, New-Jerfey Jacob Peierfon, do. Edward Pennington, Philadelphia Jofuih Phillips, Uwch-lan, Pennfylvania John Phillips, do de. Jofiah Phillips, jun. Chciler County, Pennfylv. Thomas Potts, Burlington, New-Jerfey Richard Powel, Virginia Rev. Alexander Proudfit, Salem, New- York State, 4 copies SUBSCRTBERV NAMES. Robert Ralfton, Efq- Philadelphia Mr. Matthew Randall, Burlington, New-Jerfcy Ilofea Rankins, New-Jerfey Rev. Joflvja Reece, Cecil Coi:nty> Maryland Mr. John Reed, jun. Student at Rhode Ifland College James Rice, jun. Baltimore Rev. Lewis Richard's, do. Mr. Henry Rittenhoufe, do. Jacob Richardfon, Efq. Poft-Mafler, (Bookfeller,) Newport, Rhode liland, ii copies Mifs Nancy Roberts, Baltimore Mr. Abraham Robinfon, Deerfield, New-Jerfey Daniel Robinfon, do, do. Walter RoSinftJU, New JeiTey John R. Robinfon, Wilmington, Delaware Rev. William Rogers, D. D. ProfefTor of Englifh and Belles Lettres, in the Univerfity of Pennfylvania Mr. Charles Rogers, City Wafhington William Rogers, do. do. Jofeph Rogers, Merchant, Newport, Rhode lild. Robert Rogers, A. M. Principal of the Academy, New-Port, Rhode Ifland Mr, Francis Roller, Philadelphia Ann Rofe, Philadelphia Deac. A fa Runyon, Pifcatawa, New-Jerfey Benjamin Rufh, Zvl. D. and Treafurer of the Mint of the United States, Philadelphia Sophia San ford, Philadelphia Mr. Samuel Savil, do. Jacob Schoonmaker, A. B. Student in Divinity, N. J. Mr. Charles O. Screven, Rhode Ifland College Jared Sexton, Philadelphia Elijah Shaw, Deerfield, New-Jerfey Rev. Philo Shelton, Connecticut Mr. David Shepard, Cohanfey, New-Jerfey Mrs. Flannah Shields, Philndelphia Thomas Shields, Efq. ào. Jfr. Thomas Shields, jun. do. SCiuR 232.8 A122D 275547 Seboolotï^*^^^