YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

The
EDWIN J. BEINECKE, '07
FREDERICK W. BEINECKE, '09 S
WALTER BEINECKE, '10
FUND

A
VINDICATION OF THE K-
TRUE DEITY
OF OUR
Mtttti) &Mmtt
I N
Anfwer to a late Pamphlet Entituled,
Jn Humble Enquiry into the Scripture-
Account of fefus Chri&9 &c.

Sjy J. Boyfe.

ix Rom. y. Whofe are the Fathers, and of whom as concerning
the Flejh Chrijt came, who is over all God bleffed for ever.
Amen.

DUBLIN,
Printed at the Back of Dick's Coffee-Houfe in Skjnner-Korv,
and are to be Sold by the Bookfellers, 1703.

THE
P R E F A C R
•¦% yery judicious and ferious Chrijlian to whom the-,
hterefl ofthe Gofpel and the Glory of iPs blejjed.
Author is valuable and deiy% FJ-uji needs refent
it as the Reproach, .and Infelicity ofthe Jge
wherein we live^ That while the whole of Revealed Re^
ligion is run down on the one^ hand by Infidels (under the
Name cf DeiftsJ Some of iPs mojl important Articles
are no lefs 'violently affaulted on the other byfuchas pretend,
to the Faith of Chrittians. I kpow indeed our late Uni
tarians highly value themfehes upon their numerous Tracts.
(with which the Prefs has of late years fwarm*d) as the
breaking out of fome glorious Light after a long Night of
Darkpefs ; and are ready to equalize their Attempt of over
throwing the Scheme of thofe they call 1 rinitarians, to that of
our frft Reformers, who oppojed the Corruptions <y Popery.
~Bui I muji profefs upon a diligent and impartial View of their
Writings^ I am confirmed in the Opinion^ That they have
(whatever their Authors might intend^ much more proms-
ted the Inter e^ of Infidelity and Deifm than that af Chri
stianity. / Jhall not atprejent difpute the Point with Vm,
why they engrofs this Title of Unitarians to lhemfelvesy
when the Unity of the Divine Nature is not the matter
in Difpute between them and u> ilnlefs they could fhew
usr That that Dijiinftion which we fuppofe to be between ihe
Father,

The Preface.
Father, Son, and H. Sipint^isJnco^ent wi$>*anyjfycb
Unity. ,. / ^
I forefee indeed^ they will be ready to enquire^ Wherein
I fuppofe that Diftinftion to lye^or what are the particular
Grounds of it ? But as to that, I am not afham?d to prefefs
my Ignorance. I am contented to believe there is Jtich a
Distinction between ihe Father, Son and H. Spirit, # u
a fuff cient Foundation for the diffinU things that are in
Scripture attributed to 'em^ and yet fuch as dot not tmfdyf
any Multiplication of the undivided divine Effence and-Na*
ture ; tho* I cannot affgn^ or conceive the particular
Grounds of the Diftinftion it [elf. For fuch a Diftin
ftion may be very poffble (for anything my Reafonfuggeflf
to the contrary) in an' infinite Being, notwithflandin^ the
Unity of it, at 4s not to be found in any finite Beings, that
have a Separate Exiftenee^ Andl think, " his far more fafe9
and exprejfes a more becoming Reverence for divine Revela
tion to admit of fuch an Article {tho3 there be much in the
manner of the thing unfearchable to its} than to offer a conti
nual violence to the plain and frequent Declarations of the:
H. Scriptures concerning the Deity of the Son, and the H.
Spirit. And I think there is ]HJi reafon to Jay ^ That our
late Unitarians have managed this Caufe in a manner that
tends very Utile to the honour of thofe Sacred Writings,
which are the Standard and Tefb of our Religion. For
what can more effectually leffen their Authority with the Peo
ple^ than for our Adverfahes at every turn to Coffin qnefHon^ whether

The Preface.
whether this or that particular Text be authentick and un-
.corruptfid ? Nay fometimes to raife ObyBions againff en
tire Books that belong to the. Sacred Canon ? And muff it
not needs wcahgn our Opinion of their divine Infpiration
to fuppofe that the Pen-men ef 'em have in matters of the
higheff moment, and confequence (as particularly when they
afcribe the Creation to our Lord ]etiis)us*dfuch Expref
fions as need all imaginable Subtleties of CriticiSm to
Expound *em to another Senfe, and reconcile ''em with what
our Opponents fuppofe to be the Truth ? Nay how hard is
it to preferve any Veneration for thofe Writings as divinely
inSpir'd, in which our Adverfaries fuppofe fo many Pajfages
out of the Old Teftament concerning the great Jehovah,
apply* d to oarB.Saviour in dje^eW^meerly by way of Al-
ljifion W Accommodation, when yet they appear to any
impartial Reader produc*t as AireB Proofs of what the Apo-
ffles attribute to him ? So that *tis high time for our VLnl-
tarians to apply themfehes to the flopping the Progrefs of
that Infidelity, which thmfelves have fown the Seeds of by
thus unjettling the mmds of fo many in the Chriffian Faith
thro* their over-eager Oppofition to fuch important Articles of
it, as the Deity and Incarnatirn of our B. Saviour. But
yet I muff upon fecond. Thoughts tell *em} That if they write
againff Infidels and Deifts at no better rate than the late
Author ofthe Scandal and Folly of ihe Crofsremov'd,
(See ivth ColleB 0/* Unit, Trafts.) It were much better they
fhou*d forbear intermeddling in that Difpute. For that Au~
a thor

The Preface.
thor has notoriously betraid the Chrifiian Caufe he had under
taken to defend ; and can find no way fo proper to fupport the
Credit of it with Infidels, as by giving up all u*s peculiar
Dotlrines that he thought might dijguff and fhock. 'em. He
is for makjng an eafy Compofition with *em, and provided
they will allow him a few matters of Faft, [ on which he*ll
put a ConflruSlion too as agreeable to their relijh as poffible)
he*U throw up all thofe Articles of Faith to *em, that
have been hitherto accounted the peculiar Difcoveries of
Divine Revelation. For in his Preface he undertakes
to give ihe Deifts an Account of the true Fundamentals
of the Christian Religion, by which they are to judge
of it, and not by the jarring Opinions of the Several
Chriltians they converSe with. And thofe he has re-
duc*t to this narrow compafs, Ct That there is a God,
u and an Eternal Life ('ratified and confimed by the
u Death, and ReSurreftion of Chrift) and that we
cc mult be entirely good Men, if ever we hope to be
" Partakers of it. Nay he tells *em, Revelation was
" propofed to no other End than to give Sufficient
a Proofs of an Eternal Life. And what modem Infidel
or Deift will difpute any one of his three Principles with
him ? Nay how unreafonable were it in the Dei Sts, when he
goes fo far to oblige *em, if they jhould not meet him half
way, and believe with him, that our B. Saviour died and
roSe again to confirm thatDoclrine of Eternal Life, which
is their own Creed as well as ours? They may it feems be

The Preface.
be good. Christians upon their Belief of thefe threc.Artir
c\e~, tho* 'they believe not one word of that State of Corr
ruption and Guilt into which Mankind is fallen, or of
the Incarnation of the Son of God, or of his dying in
our place and Stead, as a Sacrifice of Attonement .to
the Juftice of God, or of his InterceiTion in Heaven in
vertue of fuch a truly Expiatory Sacrifice, or of our
Justification by the free Grace of God, throD the Re
demption that is in him, or of the Necellity of ;thc
Renewing Grace of the H. Spirit in order to our Regen
eration and our continued ProgreSs in HolineSs ; fuch
Doctrines as theSe (that have been hitherto thought the. Vim?-
cipies of Revealed Re\'ig\on)that Author feems very wil
ling to difcard,on pretence of recommending it to theDe'iils^nd
facilitating their Belief of it. In fh&rt, he requires *em to take
no new Doftrines into their Creed in order to their becoming
Chriftians, but only fome new Matters of Faft that tend
to confirm the Dictates of natural Light. To this purr
pofe he tells *em again at p. 20. lC That Christian Reli-
a gion properly is nothing elfe but Natural Religi-
£C on, whoSe Light Sin had almoft extinguiuVt.
a And God to give it it's firft Splendor, yeilds up
a Chrift to Death, which vindicates us from the
cc Slavery of Sin. So that Chriff died to confirm no pe
culiar Doftrines of his own, but only thofe Dictates or
Principles of Natural Religion that Sin had almoft
extinguiuVt. Such as the three fore-mention* d DicJates which

e

The Preface. .
-which he makes the Fundamental Truths of the Gofpel,
and with which our modern Deifts will eafily agree with him
in Ranking *em among their Oracles of BLeafon. So th#$
his main Labour with the Deifts is to reconcile *em to thy
Matter of Faft, That Chrift died on the Crofs. And
accordingly he is Very careful to take away from the CroSs it
Self, whatever might be a Stumbling-block, to *em. To
that purpofe, he ailigns four Reafons of the Death of
<: Chrift ; The Firff is to atteft the Truth of this
" a Doctrine concerning another Life, and Seal it with
u his Blood. The Second, That he muft dye in order
¦•** to his being raised again, whereby God confirms the
cc Truth of this Doctrine he taught concerning ano-
<c ther Life. The Third is> That he might leave his
a Difciples an Example of Suffering for this Truth.
tc The Fourth is, That his thus dying to atteft the
« Doctrine of Eternal Life,by perfwadingMen of the
« Truth of it might bring 'em to a good Life,and So
*c free 'em from Sin. And this (he tells us) is all
c< that's meant by Chrift's becoming a Ranfom or Price
Ci of Redemption, his Giving up himfelf for us that he might
u redeem us from Iniquity, ike. His Reconciling us to God by
" his Blood, His bearing our Sins in his own Body, &c.
Thefe are all the Reafons that Author is pleafed to ajfian of
Chrift's Death and Sufferings. But what then fhall we
make of all thofe numerous Expreffions of Scripture that re-
prefentour B> Saviour's Death under the Notion of a Sacri fice?

The Preface.
fice ? and fpeak. of the Expiation of our Sins by hk
Blood, &c. And this in AUufion to thofe Expiatory
Sacrifices offer d under the Old Teffament in order to the
appeaSing of Divine Juftice ? {For in this Notion of
Expiatory Sacrifices, viz, That they were not meer Rites of
Application to the Mercy of God, but offer d to appeafe his
Vindictive Jufhce, both Jews and Pagans were agreed). As
to this, the Author tells us, " That God in condeScen-
tC tion to this Ignorance and weakneSs, and in order to
" put an end to aU theSe Sacrifices, declares, That he
cc has accepted the Death of his Son (permitted for the
u four ReaSons above-mentioned) as the only Sacrifice
cc that could pleaSe him, and procure the Remiffion
" of Sin ; meaning thereby only this, (as he imme-
" diately explains himSelf) That Chrift's Death was
cc an Aft highly pleafing to him, as Phiwa$\ Aft of
cc rLealw2&, by which he is Said to have made Attone-
u ment for the Children of Ifrael, xxv N-umk, 13. $$t
all this while, there is not one word of God's declaring in
the Death and fuffermgs of his Son, his RighteouSneSs in
the punifhment of Sin. Not one word of a Subffitutian of
Chrift's Death in the Stead of ours for demonftrating the
dement of Sin, vindicating the honour of God's violated L>aw
thai threaten* d Death as the Wages of it, and rendring the Ex
er cife of God?s Mercy in the pardon of Sin confident with the
Glory ofhisliolinefs and Juffice by fuch an Example of his
Seventy againji it. So that the DoUrim of Chrift's Satis*

* *
*

The Preface.
faction is droft. His Sacrifice is but metaphorical ;
and all the Variety of Expreffions in which *tis reprefented
in the H. Scriptures, are but pompous. Allufions, which at
the bottom fignify no fuch thing as Chrift's Death being a
valuable Consideration offer'd to the injured Juftice
of God for the Impunity of all believing and penitent
Sinners And thus to reconcile the Infidels to the Crofs of
Chrift, hedifcards the mam End and Defign of his Sufier-
ings 0# it. And affigns no other Reafons of his Death,
but what the Death of any of his Apoftles and Martyrs
would have been as capable to attain and ferve, if God had
but pleafed to fend them fir ft to preach this Do&rine of Eter
nal Life, and when they had died to atteft the Truth of it,
had rais'd'em again.
But blejfed be God, the Chriftian Religion needs not
fuch treacherous Defenders as thefe. Nor can we receive
Deifts into the Chriftian Church upon fuch eafy terms as
their believing one or two Matters of Fact, while they deny
not only all the other peculiar Doctrines of the G of pel, but even
that great Myftefy of Godlinef>,God manifested in the
Flefh. Such Profelytes to the Chriftian Church wou*d be no
better than the mo ft dangerous fecret Enemies under the
Difguife of Friends. And as the Unitarians are coming over
to the Deifts in point of Doctrine, fo they are affecting
^Conformity to *em in one of the worft of their Practices.
For if ( As the ingenious Dr. Nichols tells us ) (aA
{») See Conference with a Thrift, Part Hd p. 81, 82, 83, 84, (STc, « T^he

The Preface.
cc The Latitudinarian Principle of joining in Com*
tC munion with People of all Religions in their Seve-
cc ral Devotions, and complying with whatever Re-
cc ligion is eftablifrVt, be the very Soul of Deifm; I
am fur e our late Unitarians are come a good way towards it,.
when they have-fo frankly of late profept, That they, can
join in ihe Worfhip of thofe they call rrinitarians,. Even tho*
they know that fuch do avowedly give Divine W OlShip in
¦themoff exprefs terms to our B. Saviour to whom they no way
believe it to be due, (a). But whatever they think of it,..
no feriom Chriftian can think, fuch palpable Diffimulation
with God and Men to be excufable.
I have enlarged the more on thefe matters to let the Au
thor of the Paper I have undertaken to anfwer fee, What a
Party of Men he is pleajed to lift himfelf among ; And whi~
ther their Diffentfrom the Chriftian Church in the Point here
controverted is hkf to lead *em. And as I cannot be fo un
charitable as to think, that he woud be willing to join with fuch
Writers as thefe in fo palpable a Defign of Undermining the
Chriftian Religion, jo 1 -would not altogether defpair of the
Succefs of this Attempt to recover him from his Error ,if he
wou*d impartially weigh what is here offer* d to his Confidera-r
tion. I am fure he will here find,That I have not only fairly
reprefented his Arguments, but treated him with a mild-
neSs and temper that becomes fo excellent a CauSe, which
- (a.) See the Paper in thcIHd Colieft, cf VmU Tufts, Eotituled, The Scripturalift's
Chriftian Condefctntion eonfider'd. — —¦ needs

The Preface.
needs not the Fafjions of Men for the defence of it. And in
deed my Refpett and affectionate Tendernefs for the fuppofed
Author (the perVerfion of whofe valuable Abilities U fo ill
a purpofe I heartily lament) were fufficient to reffrainme from
that Severity of Style, which his unreafonable Confidence 7and
his infultmg Language in fome P aff ages of his Boo^, won*d
not only have prompted one too, but perhaps infome meafure
ptftififd. I remembred the Apoftle'j- Rule, of instructing
with metkners fuch as oppoSe themSelves, if peradren-
ture God may give 'em Repentance to the Acknow
ledgment of the Truth, (a.) I have not therefore treated
him asan Enemy. Much lefs have I had any hand in his
publick. Pfofecution on the account of the Book. 1 have under
taken to anfwer [as fome haye Very unpcftly reported). How far
the Author acts from Cdnfcience {tho* Erroneous and mifi
guided) in 'his prefent oppofition to this important Truth, I
leave to God*s Judgment and his own. But I cannot excufe
his continuing fo long in the Communion of a Chriftian Church
in -which he cou'd not but know that, divine Worfhip was
avowedly paid to that B. Saviour, to whom it feems he did
not in his Confidence think, it te be 'due. Jnd if he thouqht his
prefent DoChint to he true, and a Truth of fo qjeat impor
tance^ hfhbu'd in all Reafon have more early and openly de
clared it, and not have contented himfe'lf with injinuatina it
only in a few bccafional dark, and ambiguous terms. Divi
Truth feefe not fuch difguizjts,,nor is it any great A r a u
(a,) 2 Tim, II. 25, ~ ment

The Preface.
ment of Sincerity or of a good Caufe to ufe *em. But whatever
Effect this Anfwer may have upon himSelf. (For I am
not infenfible how Difficult it is to remove thofe Prejudices
that are deeply rooted , and efpeciaUy where a Mans
open Efpoufal of an Opinion engages his Reputation in the de
fence of what he h.is once afferted) Tet I hope it may be of
fome life to efiablifh fincere Chriftians in the Faith of this
Grand Article of God manifelted in the Flefh, and t&
remove the doubts of thofe (if there be any fuch among us)
whom his Paper may have ftagger*d. And *tis for this
End that I thought it abfolutely neceffary, not to confine myfelf
to the bare anfwering of the Author's Paper, without laying
before the Reader a few at leaft of thofe numerous Arguments
for our Saviour's Divinity, which the Scriptures abound
with, and which our Author (with what ingenuity and can
dour I leave himfelfto judge) was pleafed wholly to overlook/
And *tis that chiefly has drawn out this Anfwer to fo great
a length, andfo long retarded the Publication of it. But I
thought it far better to go once for all to the bottom of this Con-
troverfy by a thorough Examination of all the Author's
Objections againft our Doctrine, and comparing 9em with
the Arguments on the other fide, than to content myfelf with
afewhafty aud flight Remarks on *em. And as I thought
my f elf under fome particular Obligation to engage in this
Difpute (tho* otherwife extremely averfe to it + .kafff&
excellent a Caufe fhou*d fuffer by being info weak, hands) fo
it mwraged me the more, when I confi<ler*d, That the Au-
ttt thor

The Preface.
thor has fairly referr'd the Decifion of this ControVerfy t&
the Authority of the H. Scriptures, and has I think, gone
beyond any of our late Unitarians in producing the moft plaufi-
ble Objections againff the Supreme Deity of our Lord
Jefus that a fubtle Wit can draw from thence. But I muff
Jubjoin, That if any Reply be made to thefe Papers, in which
the Arguments I have offer* d are not represented and examm*d
with that fairnefs and candor, with which I have treated the
Author5 V moft plaufible Reafonings on this fub ject, but only
flurted at with a few fuperficial dajhes of fuch a fcornful
unhallowed Wit, as appears every where in the Pamphlets of
our late Unitarians, Ifhall not think, my felf any way con
cern* d in it. For I take this fubjett to be of that Vaff mo
ment and confequence, that it ought to be argued with the
greatefi SeriouSnefs and Gravity, and with the profound-
eft Humility that a due Senfe of our own Ignorance, and
deference to divine Revelation can infpire us with : And
thofe are very unfit to intermeddle with or be regarded in this
debate, who dare to handle it with a profane Irreverence
and inSoIent Buffoonery. I fia all only add, That I have
left manifold Arguments for the Supreme Deity of Chrift
from the Scriptures wholly untouch*t, becaufe I was willing to
fix on, and vindicate thofe only, againfi which the Author's
Objections were levelled. So that *tis not from the leaft
diffruff of their Strength that they are here omitted, but only
to prevent this Anfwer from fwelling to too great a bulk., which
is already enlarged far beyond my firfi Intention. May he
that

The Preface.
that is the Way, the Truth and the Life, gri w his H.
Spirit to guide us into all neceffary Truth, that we may
grow in Grace, and in the Knowledgof our Lord and
Saviour J. Chrift, To whom be Glory both now anc|
forever, Amen! i P«rf. III. 1 8.

J* ¦ ***

( I )

A
VINDICATION OF THE
True Deity of our B. Saviour, &c,
THE Dodxine of our Blejfed Saviour's Divinity has been
fo fully reveal'd in the H. Scriptures, fo univerfally re-
ceiv'd in the Chriftian Church, and is fo apparently
intervvoven with the whole Scheme of our Holy Reli
gion, that there needs no Apology to be made for a feafonable
Defence of it, when 'tis fo openly attack't, and with lo unufual
a confidence. It wou'd be rather moft inexcufable not to con-
tend for this part ofthe Faith once- delivered to the Saints, when the
Honour of our B. Lord, the Peace of his Church, and the Sal
vation of Souls, are fo, greatly endangered by the violent oppo
fition made to this important Truth.
I fhall at prefent cqnfider a Pamphlet wrote on this Subject,
entituled, An Humble Enquiry into the Scripture 'account of J. Chrift,
or a .Short Jrgument concerning bis Deity and Glory according to the
Scriptures. I fhall not enlarge on what is obvious to every One's Obfer-
vation, viz. How little the Title agrees with the ftrain of the
Book". For few that r-ead it with an unprejudic't Mind can
think that the Author has made his Enquiry with due Humi
lity, when they confider that he has in his Paper manifeftly
B over-

CO
over-look't the cleareft proofs of the Eflentia! Deity of Chrift
in the H. Scriptures, and only put together fuch paflages as he
thinks make againft it, and yet on that very partial Reprefen-
tation ofthe Arguments on one fide, has pronounc't againft the
Received Do&rine of the Chriftian Church with as much con
fidence, as. if he had clearly anfwer'd all the Arguments alledg'd
on the other.
Nor is it any great Argument of the Author's candour and
fincerity to entitle his Paper, An Argument concerning the Deity
and Glory of Chrift, when the whole Defign of it is to diveft
him of the Glory of that true Deity which the Chriftian
Church afcribes to him, and to degrade him to the Rank of a
meer digniffd Creature. But we muft forgive him that he was
willing for avoiding popular odium, to cover an Heterodox
Book with an Orthodox Title.
That I may therefore do fome Juftice to this important Sub
ject by fetting it in it's true Light, It will be requifite not only
to anfwer what the Author has' alledg'd againft the true Deity
of Chrift, but to fuggeft fome few ac leaft of thofe manifold
Proofs of it which the H. Scriptures fo abundantly furnifh us
with 5 the due Consideration whereof will in a great meafure
take off the force of his main Objections againft it.
To ftate the Queftion aright, We muft briefly con fider,
What kind of Deity the Chriftian Church afcribes to our B.
Saviour, and what our Author is willing to grant him.
What the Chriftian Church believes concerning the Deity
of Chrift pnefuppofes the Do&rine of the H. Trinity, viz. That
tho' there is but Owe God, one divine and infinitely perfect
Being, Yet that this One God, is fome way Three as well as One ;
That he is Father, Word (or Son) and Spirit. That the Perfe
ctions of the one undivided Nature of God are as truly afcri-
bed to the Word and the H. Spirit as to the Father. Attd yet
that the Word and the H. Spirit are by peculiar relative pro-
pertys, and by a different manner of Subfiftence and Opera tion

C5)
tion diftinguifh't from the Father -, fome things being afcrib'd
in Scripture to the one that are not to the other.
Now, tho' the H. Scriptures reveal to us fuch a Trinity in
the Unity of the divine Nature •, ( As particularly by requiring
us to be Baptized in the Name of. the Father, the Sons and the H.
Spirit^ (a) By ordering our being blefs't in the Name of each
of thefe facred Three (b). See alfo i Joh. 5. 7—). Yet how
this One God is Father, Word and Spirit, they have neither fully
reveal'd, nor are we probably in this imperfect State capable
clearly toapprehend. We do indeed fee fome refemblance of
' a Trinity in Unity in. created Beings, .themfelves. We fee the
fame Sun to be the diftin<5t Fountain of Motion, Light, and
Heat. We fee the fame Souls of Bruits to have diftind powers
of vital Motion, Senje and Appetite. We can difcern in Our
own Souls a clear diftin&ion between our vital Power, Under-
ftanding and. Will. Nay we fee in corporeal Beings themfelves
a threefold dimenfion of length, and breadth, and depth. Now
that manifeft Diftin&ion in Created Beings which we find to
be fo entirely confiftent with their Unity, gives us juft ground
to conclude, That 'tis very poffible, and no way contradictory
to any folid principles of Reafon, that there may be a much
greater DiftinBien in an infinite Being fully confiftent with the
Unity thereof. And therefore if the Scriptures affert fuch a
Difiinftion in the divine Nature, If they diftin&ly afcribe not
• only to the Father, but to the Word and H. Spirit the peculiar
Titles, Perfections and Operations of the divine Nature, and re
quire us to pay divine Homage to each of thefe facred Three, We
ought to entertain with humility and reverence what the B.
God has thus difcover'd concerning his own infinite Nature,
without any curious Enquirys beyond the line of divine Re
velation, How thefe facred Three are diftinguifh't from each
other, and yet are One true God.
(a) Matth. 28. (i) 2 Cor. c, 13. v. 13. For

{ 4 )
For we do believefeveral particular, Perfeaiom of the di
vine Nature, tho' our Underftandines are involv'd in the like
difficultys how to form any clear diftincl Idea's of 'em, or folve
all the objections rais'd againft 'em, We firmly believe the
fame God to be Eternal, tho' no man can define to us what
Eternity is, and how 'tis diftinguifh't from, and yet coexists with
the fucceffive Duration of temporary Beings. We believe the
hnmenfity of God, tho' we cannot clearly conceive, How an un
divided Being can be every where prefent, without fomething
analogous to the Extenfton of corporeal Beings. And we believe
. the divine Prefcience, tho' no man can explain, How the con
tingent Actions of free Agents can be certainly fore-known by
the divine Understanding, nor anfwer all the fubtle Arguments
that may be rais'd againft it. Nay, we that meet with fo ma
ny things in our felves^ and in the minuteft Creatures tpund
about us that are beyond our reach to comprehend , .fhould
not at all wonder that in fuch a declaration, as the greaftSod gives
of his own Infinite Nature, there fhould he lome things to us
Unfearchable : It would rather be ftrange if it were otherwife.
Now this Paper which I defign to examine, only oppofihg
the Deity of one of thofe Sacred Three, I fhall apply my felf to
the defence of that.
As t© the Author's Opinion, he does not feem very clear in
ftating the Queftion relating to the Deity of our B. Saviour.
For one while he propoies it, , <{ Whether Chrifi be the God of
" Gods, or above all Gods ? ( For this he tells us is the fiigheft and
" moft glorious Title given to God in the Old Teftament, When it is
" defigned to make the moft magnificent mention of his peeMefstgreat-
" nefs and glory.
But forefeeing perhaps that Chrift, who is over Angels, Tyhom
he tells us the Scriptures call Gods, may be therefore flyled ac
cording to his own Hypothefis God of Qgds • He feems willing
to mift the gueftion, and reduce it to. this, Whether J: Chrift
has any God over him, who has greater Authority and greater Ability
then himjelf or no ? ' Now,,

( 1 )
Now this State of the ^jteflion is unfair, and liable to juft
Exception. For. J. Chrift is a complex fubje<5t, which (accord
ing to the avowed Faith of the Chriftian Church) includes in
it, both his divine Perfon (on the accpunt whereof he is called
the Word, and the only begotten of the Father) his human Nature,
and his Office of Mediator. Now in fome of thefe refpe&s 'tis
true That J. Chrift has a God over him-, In others , 'tis not. So
that his bare proving, That in fome refpe&s ( as particularly
that in reference to his Human Nature, or to his Mediatory Of
fice) he has a God over him, will by no means provy, that he
is not the God of Gods, or Jupreme God, as he is the Word, and
the only begotten of the Father.
The true State then of the Queftion between him and us is,
Whether Chrift as the Word and Only begotten of the Father,
be only a Created finite Being, tho raifed to eminent fubordinate
authority over all other Creatures, or be a Being of infinite
perfections? Whether under this character and confideration
he be God in a proper fenfe as that denotes a Being of Infinite
perfe&ions ? or be God only in a Figurative fenfe, as that word
imports, a moftdigniffd Creature, or (in our Author's Language)
a Being in Subordinate power? And 'tis evident* That our Author
allows him to be no otherwife God than in this figurative im
proper ftnfe ; For he denys any of thofe infinite perfections to be
long to him which are the propertys of the divine Nature. So
that our B. Saviour is no more with him than a Creature rais'd
to die higheft Authority over his Fellow-Creatures, or as he
f )eaks, Tfae chief of fubordinate Powers.
My Bufinefs then is to mew, That the' Scriptures reprefent
that Word that was made Fieftog that only begotten. Son ofthe Father
that came into this world, and was partaker of our Flefh and
Blood, to be the moft High God in the proper fenfe of the word,
viz, a Being ibf infinite perfections, and not a Creature and finite
Being who is only -call'd God on the account of his Eminent
Dignity and Authority oven his fellow-creatures.
C Now

Now this I fhall endeavour to prove from the peculiar titles
of the fupreme God, (or infinitely perfect Being) that are given
to our B. Saviour, from the divine Worfhip due to him, from the
incommunicable Work? and Perfections of God afcrib'd to him.
And under each of thefe Heads I fhall have occafion to examine
and anfwer what the Author has alledg'd to the contrary.
I begin with
I. The Argument drawn from the peculiar Titles of the Su
preme God, (or, the infinitely perfeft Being) which are given
to our B. Saviour.
As to this, our Author tells us, " It is not denfd by tbe Jr-
" rians or Socinians that the B. Jefus has the Title of God afcribed
t: to him fometimes in the Scriptures. But the gueftion is, In what
" fenfe ? And having told us, That the word God in Scripture
fometimes fignifys the Supreme Being, fometimes Ferfons iwveftid
with jubordinate power, as Angels or Magiftrates, He concludes,
" That the bare character of God determines nothing in. this Cafe,,
u becaufe it belongs both to the Supreme and Subordinate Beings in
" Power and Authority. And therefore propofes the Queftion,
Whether J. Chrift be God of Gods, or above all Gods ? which he
fuppofes the peculiar character of the fupreme Being.
In Anfwer to this, We do not pretend that the bare Title
of God given to our Saviour is a demonftrative Proof of his
being the moft High God, for the reafon he alledges that An
gels and Magiftrates axe alfo called Gods. But we muft diftin-
guifh between that Title being given in a proper fen fe, and in
a figurative ( and by a catachrefis '). And 'tis apparent that
where that Title is given to Creatures 'tis either given in the
Plural Number ( As to Angels and Magiftrates ) Or if given in
the Singular Number, 'tis in fuch a particular Senfe, and un
der fuch Circumftances and Limitations as plainly (hew 'tis
apply*d only in a figurative fenfe ; As in the Inftance the Au
thor gives of Mofes being a God to Aaron and Pharaoh. Tho as
to the former 4 Exod. 16. 'Tis only faid Mofes fhould be to
Aaron

(7)
Mron inftead of God -, which plainly fhews in how improper
a fenfe the word is us'd. And this explains what is faid of
Mofes being a God to Pharaoh, viz. That he fhould reprefent
God's Authority in commanding, and exert his power in pu-
nilhing Pharaoh. So the Devil is called the God of this World,
not only on the account of his ufurped Dominion, but be
caufe he was Worfhip'd by the Idolatrous World.
Now when we argue for the Divinity of Chrift from this
Title of God, we not only infift upon it's being frequently gU
ven to him, (which it is not to any Created Being, thefe few
being the moft plaufible Inftances that can be alledg'd) but
from it's being given without any limitation, or any circumftan-
ces that fhou'd lead us to a figurative fenfe of the words -, Nay
on the contrary, in a manner that leads us to take the Title in
it's true and proper fenfe.
There is no appearance of any fuch limitation and figurative
fenfe, when our B. Saviour is call'd Immanuel, or God with us,
God manifejled in the Flefb, when he has the Title of K 'tat oe
Lord, ( which in the Septuagint anfwers to that of Jehovah )
given him throughout the whole New Teftament, when he is
call'd the true God, — i John 5. 20. — (For that that Title be
longs to him, appears not only from the ordinary grammatical
conftruction of the words, but from it's conjunction with that
other Title of Eternal Life, which in the beginning of that E-
piftle, c. 1. v. 2. is given to Chrift as diftinguifh't from the Fa*
ther). When he is call'd the Great God, 2 lit. v.\%. (For that
that Title belongs to our Saviour is evident from hence, That
the glorious appearance there mentioned is never attributed to;
the Father, but always to our B-. Lord). But efpecially when fo
many things fpoken of the great Jehovah in the Old Tefta-*
ment are fo manifeftly applied to our B. Saviour in the New.
See among many other Inftances fuch as thefe. 28 If a. \6.
2 Joel 32. compar'd with 10 Rom. 1 1, 1 2, 13, 14. So 4 Eph. 8.
compar'd with 6B Pfal. 18. 1 Cor. 10, p. compar'd with 21
Ntimk-

(8)
Numb, 6. So i Rev. 8, n.— 22— 13, compar'd with 44^. *—
And many other fuch paffages, fome of which I fhall have oc«
canon to fpeak of.
But to bring this matter to a fhorter ifiue5 If it appear
that fuch Titles as are peculiar to the Supreme God, and in
communicable to any finite Being how dignify'd foever, are
given to our B. Saviour in the H. Scriptures, The Argument
from fuch Titles will hold good to prove his being the Supreme
Gbd. Our Author feems to allow, that if Chrift were called
the God of Gods, or a God above all Gods, It wou'd prove his Di
vinity in the proper fenfe of the word. Now the Proof is as
cogent from any other Titles that are equally appropriated to
the Supreme Being, and incommunicable to any finite created Be
ing. As to fuch incommunicable Titles, I fhall only infift on thofe
two given to our B. Saviour, that of God over aU blejfed for ever
more, and that of Lord of Lords.
Firft I would argue irom that glorious title afcribed to our
B. Saviour of God over all blejfed for evermore.
The Ap. Paul fpeaking of the Jews, faith of 'em, Whofe art
the Fathers of whom, as concerning the Flejh, Chrift came, who is
over all, God blejfed for evermore, Amen. 9 Rom. 5.
To make the Force of this Argument appear, It will be only
requifite, I. To fhew that this Title is here given to our JB. Saviour.
II. That 'tis the peculiar incommunicable Title of the Sn-
preme God.
I. It will be requifite to mew, That this Title is here given to
our B. Saviour.
And 'tis the more needful to clear this, becaufe tho Socivus
himfelf freely gives up this point, yet I find our late Unitarians
generally choofe rather to evade this Text, by telling us, that
thefe laft words in tlie Text are not a defcripthn of our B. Sa
viour, but only a Doxology to the Father, and therefore fhou'd be

(9)
be rendred thus, Of whom as concerning theFlefk Chrift came, God
who is over all be bkjfed for evermore, Amen.
Nay fome late Unitarians have prefumed to tell us 'tis proba
ble the word God was not originally in the Text. But this pre
tence of their's is fo fully confuted by the late Bp. of Worcefter
in his Vindication of the Trinity, p. 154,155, &c. And by Dr.
Whitby in his Paraphrafe on this paffage, p. 48, 49, that I fhall
refer the Reader to thofe Learned Authors for entire Satisfacti
on in that point. I fhall only add, That the Unitarians pre
tend their turning the words into an Ecphonema and Doxolo-
gy, is countenanc't by the Addition of Amen, which they
tell us there were no occafion for, if the words were intended
as a Defiription of our Lord Jefus.
But the vanity of this Evafion will appear if we confider the
following particulars.
1 . That ( as Socinus himfelf well obferves ) when the word
'Ev^^t or Blejfed is intended by way of Doxology it ought to
be put before the Perfon to whom 'tis applied, not after him.
So that if the Apoftle had intended the words for a Doxology
they fhould have run thus, 's-vhtymi; a 2v '•#< irivmp eits a^»n
But I may farther add, That 'eim^tSs is never put for
'zv\cynnt '4tto but where the fenfe is imperfect and defective
without fupplying the Verb. Whereas there is no Ellipfis or
Imperfection at all as the words ly in the Original, fo that the
fupplying any fuch Verb has thefe two intolerable faults in it ;
The one that 'tis altogether unneceffary, the fenfe being com
pleat without it 5 The other that the fupplying any fuch Verb
quite alters the fenfe and purport of the words as they are in
the Original turning 'em to another fubject without any
ground for it. Nay, I may juftly add the words » *"e in the
Original are abfolutely neceffary and ufeful if we underftand
the paffage as a Defcriptiom of our B. Saviour ; Whereas they
are not only ufekfs if we underftand 'em as a Doxology, but
dangerous, as tending to mifguide us to interpret of Chrift what
D the

¦( io ;
the Ap. according to our Ad verfaries intended only of the Father.
The Reader muft excufe fuch Criticifms when our Adversaries
ufe all imaginable fubtlety to wreft fuch plain Texts from us .
We are in this Cafe forc't to fight 'em at their own Weapons.
But farther,
2. That the Ap. intended not this for a Doxology, appears,
Becaufe he is always wont in his Doxology s to mention the be
nefits conferr'd on fuch on whofe account he offers 'em. But
this he had no occafion for here; Not only becaufe thefe
Privileges he mentions as appertaining to the jews, and parti
cularly that of Chrift7s Carnal Defcent from 'em, were Priviledges
feparable from Salvation, but becaufe he here confiders the
Jews as like to lofe all the Advantage of 'em thro' their own
wretched Infidelity, and on that account expreffes his Extreme
forrow of heart for 'em, v. 2. So that he here mentions Chrift's com
ing, not as matter of Joy to them, but like to turn to the great
Aggravation of their guilt and mifery.
3. There was very juft occafion for the Ap. to add thefe
words as a Defiription of our B. Saviour.
It was very fit that when the Ap. among other Eminent
Priviledges appertaining to the Jews mentions this, That of
them Chrift came as concerning the Flefh, that he fhou'd enhance
the Priviledge by confidering the Dignity of the P erf on that
came, and his fuperiority to thofe of whom he came. Efpe«
daily when we confider, That the Apoftle fo carefully
limits what he had faid of Chrift's coming of them, That
'twas only £ id **?» *«'?** 3 as concerning the Flefh. Where
by he plainly intimates, there was fomething to beconfider'd in
him more then that Flefh or Human Nature he deriv'd by his
Defcent from them. And what it was, he reprefents to 'em in
this glorious Title, who is over all God blejfed for evermore. And
'tis obfervable that every thing in that Title is oppos'd to their
falfe opinion of him. They thought him a meer Man, The
Ap. tells 'em, He was God-, They thought him inferior to the
Fathers,

( II >
Fathers, The Apoftle ftyles him God over all; They accounted
him accurfed, The Ap. ftyles him, Blejfed for evermore.
I fhall only add, That the Addition of Amen is no proof at
all of the words being a formal Doxology, not an Ajjertion, be
caufe 'tis elfewhere added/ upon the mention of this Title,
where there is only an AJfertion, no formal Dexology. 'Tis fo
in this very Epiftle, (a) They ferved and worjhipped the Creature
more thin the Creator, irho is God blejfed for evermore, Amen.
But as to the Author, I need the lefs infift on this, becaufe
in difcourfe on this Subject he own'd thefe words as a Defirip
tion of our B. Saviour, but expounded 'em of his being the chief
of thofe jubordinate Powers that are call'd Gods in Scripture.
I come therefore
II. To fhew, That this of God over all, blejfed for evermore, is
the Incommunicable Title of the God of Gods, or the Supreme God.
And this will fufficiently appear, if we confider
I. This Title is no where elfe in Scripture given to any Cre
ated Being, or Subordinate Fewer, but always to the Supreme God;
, I cannot find that this Title of God Blejfed, or Blejfed for
evermore occurs oftner than four times in the New Teftament.
(For as to the word Blejfed apply'd to God, i Tim. cap. i. v. u. .
And i Tim. cap. 6. v. 15. 'Tis not in the Original 'Evhoytnls, but
^Ax-ei©- or Happy. However 'tis there alfo appropriated to the-
moft High God ). And in every one of thofe places, 'tis ma-
nifeftly apply'd to the moft High God. 'Tis fo in the Queftion
propos'd by the High-Priejl to our Saviour, Art thou Chrift the
Son of the Blejfed ? 'Tis fo in Rom. 1. v. 25.— -fOf which, more
anon). 'Tis lo 2 Cor., 11. v. 3 1. — Where the God and Father
of our Lord J. Chrift is defcrib'd in expreffions plainly parallel
to thofe here us'd concerning our Saviour, iwv.vh0yim\eitli,zva.t
who is blejfed for evermore. And I hope the peculiar Addition,
over all, cannot be thought any diminution of this II-
luftrious Character. For that is alfo elfewhere given to the

(a) chap. 1. v. 25*

Father

Father (c). I may therefore here juftly challenge our Adver-
farys to produce any other place where this Title is given to
any Creature how dignify 'd foever. And if they cannot, How
unreafonable is it to fuppofe this the character of a Creature here,
which is every where elfe appropriated to the moft High God.
Nay, 'tis obfervable, That where any Creatures are in the New
Teftament called Blejj'ed, The word is not 'fiw^W*, but 'ejmo^m*'©-*
See i Luke 42, — where 'tis apply'd to the B.Virgin, and to
the fruit of her womb, the Man Chrift Jejus. Nor is that obfer-
vation of Dr. Hammond groundlefs (as Monfieur Le Clerk wou'd
reprefent it) concerning the ordinary Cuftom of the Jews to
add to the Name of God this Title of Blejfed for evermore. And
had the Ap. believ'd our Saviour to be no more than a digni
fy 'd Creature, he cou'd not -have put a greater ftumbling-block
before the Jews to harden 'em in their Infidelity, than by gi
ving him a Title and Character which they had always appro
priated to the great Jehovah. For he might be fure they wou'd
take thefe words to be an Afcription of Divinity to him in the
moft ftrict and proper fenfe. So that the Ap. cou'd not have
fpoken more unwarily and dangeroufly to the prejudice of the
Chriflian Caufe, had he been of the Opinion of our late Uni
tarians, but nothing cou'd have been added more feafonably
and juftly according to the received Doctrine of the Chriftian
Church. But
2. This Argument is the ftronger, if we confider, That this
character is given to the moft High God as diftinguifh't from all
Creatures whatfoever.
'Tis fo in that foremention'd place, 1 Rom. 25. — where the
Ap. charges the Gentiles with worjhipping and ferving the Crea
ture more than for rather befide ¦**&) the Creator, who is God blejfed
for evermore, Amen. The Creatures the Gentiles ferv'd were ma
ny of 'em fuch Demons and Deceajed Heroes, as they fuppos'd to
CO Epji. 6. be

be fubordinate powers, but rais'd to the dignity of Gods h From
all thefe the Apoftle diftinguiflies the true God the Creator of the
world by this Title of God blejfed for evermore, q. d. That God,
to whom alone the Bleffing and Adoration of all intelligent Creatures
is and will be for ever due. Now with how little Juftice cou'd
the Apoftle fix this fevere reproach on the Gentile-Philofophers}
( for of them he here fpeaks) when they might from his other
Epiftles retort his own Argument upon him.. " Can it be
" fuch a. Crime in us to worfhip a Creature bejides the Creator,
„ when you your felf propofe a dignify' d Creature as an Object of
' „ Religious Adoration,to whom you tell us, every Knee fhoud bowl
„ and every Tongue confefs his Dominion (a) • Nay when you even
cloth this exalted Creature with fo glorious a character as that of
God over all Blejfed for evermore, which you here give to the
Creator 5 nay when in other Writings you afcribe the Creation
to him ? (b) Can that then be Idolatry in us that is none in you ?
And fhou'd the Unitarians here fuppofe the Apoftle to alledge
for himfelf, That he did not give to Chrift Supreme, but only
Subordinate worfhip (as our Author himfelf profeffes he do's) (c).
The Gentiles wou'd readily alledge the fame Diftin£lion~to juftify
their worfhip of thofe Creatures whom they fuppos'd to be
exalted to the dignity of inferior Gods. The Ap. might indeed
blame 'em for their ill choice of thofe jubordinate powers they
worfhip't, but cou'd never juftly, upon the principles of our
Adverfarys, charge them as Idolaters for worfhipping the Creature
befide the Creator, who is God blejfed for ever ; when the Apoftle
himfelf and all -Chriftians (if they were of our Author's Opini
on) did worfhip a Creature bejides the Creator, nay under that ve
ry Title of God, nay of God over all blejfed for ever. But of this
I fhall have occafion to fpeak more fully under the Argument
drawn from the Divine Worfhip due to our B. Saviour

(•*) Phil. Z. v. 10. (b) Col. i. vi i<5. (0 See pag. 17.
E Secondly,

( >4)
Secondly, I would argue from that other Title afcrib'd to
our B. Saviour, viz. Lord of Lords, XIX Rev. \6.
And I the rather choofe to infift on this, becaufe our Au
thor owns indeed this Title to be given him, but endeavours
to disprove this Inference drawn from it.
To this purpofe he tells us, " That the Title of Lord of
" Lords denotes an Inferior Character compar'd with that
" of God of Gods, as appears by that i Cor. VIII. 5. tho* it
" be included in the Superior, fo that he who is above all
" Gods, is alfo over all Lords, but not contrariwife, p. 2.
Anfvo. That the Title of Lord of Lords notes an Inferior Cha
racter compar'd with that of God of Gods, fo that he maybe
Lord of Lords, who is not God of Gods, is not only aflerted by
the Author without any folid proof, but againft the current of
the H. Scriptures, which do as truly appropriate the Title of
Lord of Lords as that of God of Gods to the great Jehovah, or
only true God. See in the Old Teftament, X Deut. 57. The Lord your
God is God of Gods, and Lord of Lords, a great God mighty and ter
rible, &c. So 136 Pf. 2, 3. And in the New Teftament, 1 Tim.6.
15. The great God is defcrib'd as the Blejfed and only Potentate,
the King of KJngs, ^d Lord of Lords. And indeed if that Ti
tle of God of Gods fet that Being to whom it is given, above
all Gods whatfoever, and imply there is no God above him 5
There is the fame Reafon why the Title oi Lord of Lords fhou'd
fet him to whom it is given above all Lords whatfoever, and
imply that there is no Lord above him. But this the Author
will by no means grant to be true of our B. Saviour, and there
fore is forc't againft the ftrain of Holy Writ to fuppofe there
are two diftinB Beings, ( one Finite, the other Infinite ) to whom
yet the fame Character of Lord of Lords does belong, Whereas
the forementioned Text makes this to be the Title of him who
is the Bleffed and only Potentate, who therefore has no Rival
with him in this glorious Character.
And St. Thomas feems not to have been ofthe Author's Opin- nion

( »0'
nion in this point, but on the contrary to have fuppofed the Ti
tle of Lord and God equally due to the fame Object of Religi
ous Worfhip, when he crys out in his devout Addrefs to our
B. Saviour, My Lord and my God. XX John 28.
And I may here juftly add, That the Title of Lord of Lords
is Equivalent to that of Lord over all. Now that Title of Lord
over all is made by the Apoftle Paul. Equivalent to that of Je
hovah in the Old Teftament, and yet in the fame place is given
by him to our B. Saviour. He cites from the Prophet Joel
thofe words, He that calls on the Name oi Jehovah fhall be faved,
10 Rom. 13. Whom the Prophet ftyles Jehovah he calls Lord over
att, v. 1 2. And that by that Lord over all he underftands our B.Sa-
viour is evident from the following verfe. For it was him the
Apoftles were fent to Preach, and to invite both Jews and Gen
tiles to believe and caU upon, v. 1 4. ( Of which more will occur
under the Argument from Divine Worfhip ).
But Our Author referrs us for proof of what he fays, That
the Title of Lord of Lords denotes an Inferior Character, to
1 Cor. VIII 5.
But if it be Enquir'd, How this appears from that Text ? I
fee not what the Author has offer'd to prove it, unlefs we will
take for proof of it what he faith in the fecond Column of the
fecond page, which I fhall carefully confider.
" Mow manifeftly {faith he) are the One God and One
" Lord diftinguifh't ? 1 Cor. 8. 6. And that there may be no
*: pretence to fay with Placaus, That the God, and the Lord,
" or the Caufe of which all things are, and the Caufe by
" or thro' which ail things are, are but two things faid ofthe
" fame one God, We may fee 'em more clearly diftinguifh't
«' 4 Eph. 5, 6, where by interpofing other things between the
'• One Lord and One God, viz. One Faith, One Baptifm, It
" appears evidently, That thefe were not intended as two
" Characters of the fame Being.
Jnfw. To clear this, I may juftly premife that the Title here
given

( iO
given to our B. Saviour is not Lord of Lords, but the Lord by
whom are all things. Nay, tho' it fhould be granted to our Au
thor that the bare Title of Lord may fometimes note one in
Office inferior to the Father ( which he has yet no way prov'd )
yet this wou'd make nothing for our Author's purpofe againft
the True Deity of Chrift, unlefs he could fhew us, That Chrift's
being call'd the Lord by whom all things are, did imply him to be
only a dignify' d Creature, and fo a Being diftinguifh't from the
Father in Nature and Ejfential Perfections. For the Son of God
may be in refpect of Office inferior to the Father, and fuftain a
Character inferior to his, without any inequality in refpect of
Ejfential Perfections ( As I fhall have occafion to fhew after
wards ).
Now that the Apoftle does not by the Lord by whom all things
are, intend a meer dignify 'd Creature, diftinguifh't from the Fa
ther in point of EJfence, Placaus has ofFer'd feveral Reafons to
prove which our Author has offer'd no Reply to, and the Au
thor produces but one Argument againft it, which has no
manner of force. m
As to Placceus's Arguments I fhall only mention and enforce
thefe three.
i. Becaufe this Suppofition alone can render the Apoftle's
Reafoning folid and clear.
The Apoftle had afferted, That an Idol in the World was nothing,
according to the known Doctrine of the Old Teftament, that
brands all the Deitys of the Gentiles as Vanity s and Nothings :
i. e. All the Obje&s of the Worfhip of the Gentiles were no
thing in point of real Divinity. On the contrary he afferts,
that there is none other God but one. And how do's he prove
this ? 'Tis by this Argument. For tho there be that are cal
led Gods whether in Heaven or Earth ; (/. e. Tho the Hea
thens have a multiplicity of Gods both Celeftial and Terre-
ftrial). As there be Gods many, and Lords many • ( /. e. as
there are many fuch Demons whom the Heathens own'd as
Gods

( 17)
Qods and Lords ) (a) But to us ( i. e. to us Chriftians ) There
is but One God the Father of whom are all things, and we in ( or
for ) him, And One Lordjefus by whom are all things, and we by
him. Now if we fuppofe the Apoftle to defcribe that One
.God ( whofe Unity he intended to prove in oppofition to the
Pagan Polytheifm ) according to two different manners of fubfi-
ftence and Operation ) which are peculiar to the Father and the
Son, viz. The Father as the Caufe of whom all things are and we
in or for him, The Son as the Caufe by whom all things are and we by
him, The one diftinguifh't by the Characterof God, The other of
Lord, we make him argue confiftently with himfelf, as well as
with the receiv'd Doctrine of the Chriftian Church. And even
tho Lord fhou'd denote a lower Character belonging to Chrift
as Mediator, yet if he to whom 'tis given be in refpect of his
Nature God as well as the Father, ftill the Apoftle argues con
fiftently, and well proves, That Chriftians have no other God
but one, becaufe they own but one Father thatfuftains the rights
of the Deity, and One Lord, that is the Adminiftrator of the Di
vine Kingdoro, and is One in Eflence with the Father.
But on the other hand, if we fuppofe, That the Apoftle by
One Lord means only a Dignify'd Creature, a Being entirely di-
ftinct from the true God, and yet a God by Deputation, His way
of Reafoning will be very unaccountable and ftrange; For
according to this fuppofition the Ap. proves there is no other
God but One in oppofition to the Heathens Polytheifm. How ?
Why becaufe though ' the Heathens have many Gods and
Lords, yet we Chriftians have but One God the Father, who
alone is God by EJfence, and One Lord, who is God by Office and

(t) That this is a juit Paraphrafe of the Apoftles Expreffions in oppofition to the Para-
phrafc of the Socini&ns, re-advanc't of late by Monfieur Le Chrk,who underftands by
Cods and Lords, Angels and Magiftratesy I muft referr the Reader for fuller fa*
tisfaaiontoDr. ^kitty's Ptrtpbrafe ?. 141. where he win fee that new Expofition
(blidly confuted.

Deputation.

( 18 )
Deputation. Which in Effect is to prove, That to Chriftians,
There is no other God but One, becaufe to them, there are but
Two One Ejfentid God, and another made God,, One God by
Nature, and another by Office. Befitfes if we fuppofe with the
Unitarians, That the Ap. intends,. One God with that Limitati
on, of Owe. that is God of himfelf and by Nature, we ought in air
reaXon to apply the like limitation to one Lord, and underftand
it of One who has this LordfMp and Dominion of himfelf . But
this wou'd overturn their Opinion concerning our B. Saviour,
whofe Dominion they will by no means allow to be from him,-
Mf 2. And this Argument will appear the ftronger,if we add to it,
That the Expofition of our Adverfaries wou'd give the Gentiles
a fair handle to juftify their Worfhip of their Inferior Deities.
For the Learned Pagans might juftly retort on the Apoftle.
We own as well as you, That there is but One God, i. e. One
who is God. of himfelf and the Supreme God, but it will not.
thence follow, That all the Inferior Demons we worfhip have
nothing of Divinity in 'em, and that no worfhip is due to 'em.
For we fuppofe 'em conftituted as Inferior Gods by the favour
of the Supreme God, on the account of the Lordfhip and Domi
nion he has delegated to 'era. We fuppofe that he has advanc't
'era to that Dignity, and allows our paying 'em an inferiour Re
ligious Homage, {a) Now what do we in this matter more then
you Chriftians, who befides that One God that is of himfelf, own
another God, and pay a Religious Homage to him, even to one
who is but a God by Courtefy and Deputation ? So that if our
Demons are but Fictitious Deities to whom no Worfhip is due,
There is as little due to your made God, who is as meer a No-
thing in point of true Divinity as ours. All that I can fee capa
ble of being reply'd is, That the Heathens were miftaken in

(*) See Celfta making this very Plea for Demon- Woifhipt Gelf. t{. Orig. 1. 8. p. 381 ,
tl

( 19 >
thinking, their inferior Deitys to be conftituted fuch by the Su
preme God >, but ftill their Argument, according to the Unitarian
Hypothejis, fufficiently clears their Demon- worfhip from being Ido
latrous. Of which more will occur under the Head of Wor
fhip. 3. I may juftly add, That to be the Cauje by whom are all
things, is tlie peculiar character of the true God, and therefore
cannot be the character of a meer Dignify'd Creature.
'Tis mention'd as the character of the true God, That of him%
and thro' (or byj him, and to him are all things, Rom. 11. 35. And
this Phrale is apply'd to Chrift, when the work of Crea^
tion is afcrib'd to him, Eph. 3. v. 9. 1 Col. 16. (which I fhall
anon, mew to be the peculiar work of the True and Supreme God).
And therefore thofe Anions are plainly miftaken who tell us,
that this phrafe aH things are by him, denote only a finite injlru-
mental Caufe fubfervient to the firft. Whereas it appears from
the fore cited place, That this Expreflion is applied to the firft
Cauje, by whom, as well as of whem, all things are. All things
are of the Father, by the Eternal Word. And this is agreeable
to 1 Job. v. 1, 2.
Nor can our Adverfarys juftly pretend, That the Apoftle's
faying, To us there is but One God the Father, do's exclude all but
the Father from being God. For by the fame Reafoning thefe
words, To us there is but One Lord, wou'd exclude all but Chrift
from this character of Lord, f As feveral of the Ante-nicene Fa
thers very well argue in commenting on thefe words j.
But Our Author inftead of making any Reply to Placaus's Ar
guments, pretends to overturn 'em all with one Objection, viz,
" That we may fee the One God and One Lord more clearly diftin-
" guifb't, Epb.4. v. 5,6. Where by interpofing other things between
" the One Lord, and One God and Father, viz. One Faith, and One
" Baptifmt, It evidently appears, That theje were not intended as two
" characters of 'the fame Being.
But how do's this evidently appear ? It do's indeed appear, That

( ")
That the Apoftle diftinguifhes between that One Lord, and the
Father. But how do's it appear, That he diftinguifhes between
'em, as between two Beings, the one whereof was only a finite
' dignify' d Creature, the other uncreated and infinite ? Why may
not the fame God according to one manner of fubfiftence and
operation be call'd God the Father, and according to another dif
ferent maaner of fubfiftence and operation be ftyled in refpeft
of his Mediatory Kingdom Lord ? And why may not thefe
two that are diftinguifh't from each other in their manner of
fubfiftence, their Relative Propertys, and their characters in the
Oeconomy pf our Salvation, be mention'd diftinctly, and at
fome diftance in the fame Paragraph, without fuppofing 'em to
be diftinguifh't from each other in refpect of effential perfecti
ons, or without fuppofing 'em to be two fuch diftinct Beings as
God and a meer dignify d Creature are ? Efpecially when thofe
words, one Faith, and one Baptifm are fitly mention'd after one
Lord, as the genuine diftinguifhing characters of thofe that be
long to his Mediatory Kingdom. If the Author fee any force
in his own Argument, he muft excufe us that we do not, but
think there is incomparably greater ftrength in the Arguments
on the other fide, which he thought fit to take no notice
of. I fhall only add under this Head, that the very Title of Lord
Ko'ex®- fo univerfally given to our Saviour thro' the New Tefta
ment, and anfwer ing to that of Jehovah in the Old, has been
enlarg'd on as a Proof of our Saviour's Divinity by the Bijhop
of Sarum, (a) whofe Reafoning on that Head the- Author has
not thought fit to take any notice of.
Having thus far purfued the Argument from the peculiar
Titles of the Supreme God being given to our B. Saviour, it will

(t) See Bifliop of Strums Four Difeourfes, from pag. no, to p. 121. be

( *I )
be proper for me under this Head, to take notice of the two
firft Arguments he advances againft the true Divinity of our B.
Saviour. His firft Argument is, " That our Lord J. Chrift exprefsly fpeahjs
" of another God diftinbt from himfelf. Several times we find him
" faying, My God, of another. 27 Matth. 46. My God, my God,
" why haft thou forfafyn me. Sure he intended not to fay, My felf,
" myfelf, why haft thou for fallen me ? This God was then diftintt
" from himjelf, as he declares in other places, 7 John 17, He fhaU
<c know of my Doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I fpeak. of
" myfelf. So 8 John 42. Where 'tis to be noted that he does not
" diftinguifh himfelf from him as the Father but as God. And there-
" fore in all juft Conftruction he cannot be fuppos'd to be that felf
" fame God, from whom he diftinguifhes, and to whom he oppojes
*' himfelf. Anfw. 'Tis fbmething ftrange, That the Author fhou'd take
no notice of what had been briefly offer'd in anfwer to this
Argument in the Remarks on Mr. E — 's Cafe. But fure he can
never expect this Argument fhou'd ftagger thofe who believe
that there are Two Natures united in our Lordjefus, unlefs he
had firft overthrown that important Article of our Religion.
( What he has offer'd afterwards will be confider'd in its due
place. ) Chrift as Man diftinguifhes himfelf from God, There
fore the Word to which his Human Nature was united, can
not be God, tho apparently call'd fo. Where is the Confe-
quence i All the force of the Argument lies in this, That
whenever Our Lord Jejus fpeaks of himfelf, he muft be necef-
farily fuppos'd to include all that is in his Perfon. But this
is a manifeft miftake. Our Author himfelf grants, That that
may be affirmed of a Perfon which belongs only to a part of
him, p. 8. And nothing is more ufual in our common forms
of Speech then to apply that to our felves, which is true only
of a part of our Compounded Nature, As one may fay I my
felf was wounded, or fick,, when only his Body is fo, not his
G Soul

. (")
Soul. Thus our Lord Jefus faith to his Difciples after his Re*
furrection, Behold my hands and my feet, That 'tis I my felf y For a
Spirit has not flefh and bones as ye fee me have. Where he calls
bis Body, himfelf. And what if we fhou'd hereupon argue as
our Author,. That our B. Saviour had no Soul or Spirit, becaufe
he fpeaks of himfelf as diftinct from a Spirit, and therefore can
not be fuppos'd to have any Spirit, from which he diftinguifhes,
and to which he oppofes himfelf -, Wou'd he take fuch Rea-
foning for any better than weak Sophiftry ? And why may not
our Lord Jefus then call his Human Nature himfelf, as well as
his Human Body ? Why may he not as Man diftinguifh him
felf from God} And the Author knows well enough, It was
as Man that he fuffer'd thofe Agonies on the Crols, and as Man
that he came to reveal the Will of God to the Sons of Men.
But the Author fhou'd tell us, how we fhall reconcile his Ar
gument with Chrift's being fo often and exprefly ftyled God,
whereas he fuppofes him always diftinguifh't from God ? And
he can no way folve the Difficulty without that Diftinction of
a God by Nature, and a God by Office. So that the Debate will
come to this, Whether of thefe Diftinctions be more confor
mable to the Strain of the H. Scriptures, viz. Our Diftinction
of two Natures in the Perfon of our B. Saviour, with which
we folve the PafTages he mentions 5 Or his Diftin&ion of a
God by Nature, and a God by Office or Deputation, to which he
muft flee to reconcile thofe PafTages in which Chrift is diftin
guifh't from God with thofe wherein he is called God. We
can fhew him our Diftinction clear in feveral PafTages (As i
John i, 14. 9 Rom. 5. 1 Tim. 3. 16). But we cou'd never yet
difcern any Footftep of the other in the H. Scriptures, which
aflure us, That to us, (Chriftians;, There is no other God but One.
1 Cor. 8. 4. And the very firft Command ftrictiy forbids our
Owning any other as God but hira, xx Exod. 3.
And this lea'ds me to what he adds under this Argument
from that fore-cited Text, 1 Cor. 8. 4. But having already
confider'd

( *3 )
confider'd his weak Reafoning from that Paffage, p. 14, 15,
&c I fhall refer the Reader thither. And come to his
Second Argument, viz.
" Our Lord Jefus not only owns another than himfelf to be God,
" but alfo that he is above or over himjelf. Which is plainly aljo
cc intimated by the Jpojlles. Himfelf loudly proclaims his fubjebtiom
ic to the Father in many Inftances. In general he declares his Father
" to be greater than he. Xiv John 28. 50. X c. 29. He faith,
" He came not in his own, but his Father's Name and Authority.
V Joh 43 . That he fought net his own but God's Glory -, nor made
his own If 'ill but God's his Rule. And in fuch a pofture of fub-
" jett ion he came down frojn Heaven to this Earth. So that it.
" fhou'd feem that Nature that did praexift did not pojfejs the fu-
1 preme WiU, even before it was incarnate, vi John 3 8. Again, he
' owns his dependence on his God and Father, even for thofe things,
1 which 'tis pretended belong to him as God, viz. the Power ofwork,-
' ing Miracles. V John 19, 20. Of raifing the Dead, v. 26. Of
" executing univerfal Judgment, v. 27. Of all which he fays, Of
my own felf I can do nothing, v. 30. In like manner his Apoftles
1 declare his fubjebtion to another ; not only as his Father, but as his
" God, which is moft emphatically exprejfed, in calling the moft B.
" God, the God of our Lord Jefus, after Ms humiliation was over,
" I Eph. 17. And the Head of Chrift is God, I Cor. u. v«3„
" They declare his Headfhip over the Univerfe, and the very founda-
tc tion of his Claim to honour and fervice, to be owing to the gracious
" Gift of God, 2 Phil. 9. And yet thefe are fome of the Higheft Glo-
" ries of J. Chrift.
Anfw. That this Argument is of no force againft the true Deity
of our B. Lord, will appear if we confider, That God the Father
may be above Chrift in feveral refpects, which yet are no way
inconfiftent with his being One God with the Father, and that
the Scriptures cited by our Author under this Head are to be
underftood only of the Father being above him in fome of thofe
refpects. LI

C *4 )
I. I fhall fhew, That God the Father may be faid to be above
Chrift in feveral refpects, which yet are no way inconfiftent with
his being One God with the Father.
Now the Father may be faid to be above our Lord Jefus in
thefe three refpects.
i. With refpect to his human Nature. Who can doubt but a
temporary dependent Creature is every way inferior to that
Eternal Almighty Being that made him I
2. With refpect to the Eternal Generation of his divine Perfon,
as he is the only begotten of the Father. We acknowledge a pri
ority in the order of fubfifting to be peculiar to the Father, who
is therefore called the Fountain of the Deity. The Father and
and Son's having the fame Nature do's not deftrdy the order of
perfons. ., A Son is equal to his Father in refpect of the human
Nature he derives from him, but yet inferior in that Relative
capacity of a Sou. And on this account the Father is fometimes
in Scripture call'd God by way of eminency, and propos'd as the
ultimate object of Religious Worfhip ; 2 Eph. 18. Thro' him (i.e.
thro' J. Chrift) we have accefs by one Spirit to the Father, i. e. to
the divine Nature as primarily fubfifting in the Perfon of the
Father. 3. With refpect to his Office as Mediator.
In one God we believe there is Father, Son, and H. Spirit. And
that there is between thefe facred Three that diftinction which
is a fufficient foundation for their diftinct agings towards each
other, of which there are evident Inftances in the myfterious
Oeconomy of our Redemption. In which the order of work
ing follows that of fubfifting. The Father fuftains the place of
fupreme offended Lawgiver. The Son by 3 voluntary Difpen-
fation alTumes our Nature, and interpofes as an Attuning Medi
ator. And, this is a wonderful Inftance of the condefcention
of the Eternal Word, that tho he was God equal with the Father in
refpect of effential perfections, yet his companionate regard to
us induced him to accept a itation and fuftain a character in
order

( If )
order to our Recovery, in which the Father is Greater than he%
yea in which he was in the Nature he affum'd to be humbled
to fuch an aftonifhing Degree, as to be Obedient to Death, even
the Death of the Crofs, To be defpifed and rejected of men, as well
as fmitten of God.
And in this capacity of Mediator after he had finifh't the
work of his humbled State, he was crowned with Glory and
Honour, and defervedly advanc't to a fovereign Dominion over
all, that in the Adminiftration of his Mediatorial Kingdom he
might accomplifh the eternal Counfels of the divine Will.
And in this ftate of Exaltation his human Nature has an emi
nent Degree of Dignity and Glory above any other created Be
ing, conferr'd upon it, which was not it's original Right, but
the Reward of his Condefcention and meritorious obedience
and fufferings.
Now, tho under each of thefe, Confiderations God the Fa
ther is above the Son, yet none of 'em is inconfiftent with the
Son's being God by Nature.
Not his being Man. For tho as Man, he is not God 5 yet
he, who is Man, is alfo God. For the Apoftle fure do's not
fpeak contradictions and impoffibilitys, when he tells us, that
of the Fathers as concerning the Flefh Chrift came, who is over all,
God blejfed for evermore. And that divine Word who was with
God, (and fo diftinguifh't from the Father as to his manner of
fubfiftence) and who was God, ( and fo was one with the Father
in EJfence ) Even this Word was made Flefh, and dwelt among us,
i John i, 14.
Not his being the Son of God, in refpect of his Eternal Emana
tion from the Father. His Per finality abftra&ly confider'd do's
• not formally include the divine EJfence, but only the manner of
his having it, viz. By a neceffary Eternal Communication from
the Father, in a manner to us incomprehenfible. So that his
being the Son of God, and being God, are no more incompatible
than a thing and the Manner of it.
H Nor

( *6")
Nor is his kim Mediator inconfiftent with his being God.
For this office is altogether a voluntary Difpenfation. Suppofe a
Father and Aon to be jointly poffeft of the fame fovereign Power,
and to Reign together. Upon the Rebellion of their undutiful
Subjects, may pot the Son leave the Rights of his Sovereignty
in his Father's hands, and take upon him the office of a Recon
ciling Mediator, without being divefted of the Crown ? This is
fome illuftrgtion of the Cafe before us, tho it do's not fully
reach it. He who is the Mediator is alfo God. He was God
who pur chafed the Church with his own blood, Acts 20. v. 28. And
fince it was the marvellous condefcention and love of the Son
of God that brought him into this Relation of a Mediator, What
can it be but moft unreafonable ingratitude to turn this fruit of
his unconceivable pity into an Argument againft his Deity ?
Thus we fee in what refpects our Lord Jefus may be own'd
to be Inferior to the Father, and that none of 'em are inconfiftent
with his being the fame God by Nature.
I therefore proceed to fhew
II. That all the paflages of Scripture which the Author pro
duces may be underftood of our B. Saviour under fome of thefe
Confederations, and therefore do, not difprove his being parta
ker of the fame divine Nature with the Father.
The firft place he mentions is, " My Father is greater than I,
John 14. v. 28.
Anfw. If we fuppofe our Saviour to fpeak this of himfelf as
Man, There is no difficulty at all. And the Context favours
this Interpretation, becaufe he fpeaks of his bodily prefence
with 'em, of his leaving 'em and going to the Father, and under
this limitation adds, My Father is greater than I. And that he
do's not mean himjelf'm the whole of what was in his perfon,
is evident, becaufe in fome fenfe he was in Heaven already, (See
3 John 13,) and cou'd not in that fenfe fpeak of his going thi
ther. But we may without any prejudice to our Caufe grant him
much

( il )
much more, That our Saviour fpeaks of himfelf as Mediator^
and in that fenfe afTerts That the Father is greater than he. For
tho in refpect of his divine Nature, He and the Father are One,
Yet in this Relation of Mediator he was the Servant of the Fa
ther, andfint by him, Ifa. 42. v. 1. And indeed had our B. Savi
our been no more than a Man, His AfTertion, That the Father
is greater than he, wou'd carry but a jejune fenfe with it. For
who cou'd ever admit any doubt about the Infinite and Eternal
Jehovah being greater than any finite temporary Being ? Whereas
if he fpeak of himfelf as Mediator, the AfTertion was very pro
per and needful.
And this may alfo obviate what the Author next objects from
" 5 John 43. 6. 38. That our Saviour came down in his Father's
Name, That he came down from Heaven not to do his own Will,
11 but the Will of him that fent him 5 Upon which he puts this
" glofs, That it was in a pofture of fubjection that he came down
" from Heaven to this Earth, fo that it fhou'd feem that Nature that
" did pra-exift did not pojfefs the fupreme Will.
Anjw. I am glad to find, That the Author will allow to our
JB. Saviour fuch a pra-exiftent Nature, but forry he fpeaks fo very
doubtfully of it ; leaft, I fuppofe, he fhou'd difoblige his Socinian
Friends. But as to his Objection, I freely grant him, That it
was the WiU ofthe Father, which the Man Chrift Jefus came to
fulfil. And as Man, his WiU was doubtlefs diftinct from the
WiU of the Father, and entirely fubjett thereto. Nay, tho we
fhou'd underftand thefe Expreffions concerning that pra-exiftent
Eternal Word that was Incarnate ; It wou'd not hence follow,
That the Eternal Word had not the fame Will alfo, but only that
in this oeconomy of things, God the Father who was firft in or
der of Being, was confider'd as the firft Spring and Mover, by
whofe Appointment the Son came as Mediator, not to purfue
any particular WiU of his own, which was not the -Will oi the
Father alfo. Nor is it inconfiftent with the Son's being God, to
fay, that in the Quality, or under the character of Mediator he
came

cc

( *8)
came into the World ( i. e. was Incarnate ) in a pofture of fuh-
jettion. Again, As to thofe paffages wherein our Lord Jefus owns his
dependence on the Father for thofe things that belong to him
originally as God, As the Power of working Miracles, Raifing
"the Dead, and executing univerfal Judgment, John 5. v. 19, 20, 26,
27. They either refer to his human Nature, or to his Office of
Mediator, for the difcharge whereof we own his Authority to
be delegated and deriv'd. And thofe words of our Lord lead
us to this Expofition, in which he tells us, that the Father has
given him authority to execute Judgment alfo, becaufe he is the Son
of Man, v. 27. Where he both intimates In what Nature he
was to Execute Judgment, viz. As the Son of Man, and the very
Reafon of the Father's conferring that honour upon him as Me
diator, even becaufe he is the Son of Man, i.e. has condefcended
to be Incarnate, and take our Nature on him.
But as to his faying, That of himfelf he cou'd do nothing, John
5.1;: 30. 'Tis not incongruous to fuppofe that he defign'd there
by to affert his Union in Nature with the Father \ as One Energy
or Principle of Operation, becaufe when he ufes the fame Ex~-
preflfon, v. 19. he adds, What things foever the Father. do's, the
Son do's likewifi -, (which can never be true of a meer Created
Being, unlefs we make it Omnipotent), and that as the Father
hath life in himfelf, fo he has ( by an Eternal Communication)
given the Son to have life in himfelf, v. 26. (i.e. theXame Effen-
tial life, which according to the order of fubfifting is firft in
the Father).
And it feems partly for this Reafon, That the Apoftle Paul
calls the Father fo often the God and Father of our Lord Jefus
Chrift-, Not only his God, as his human Nature was his workptan-
fhip and Creature-, but his Father, becaufe the Godhead or divine
Nature is communicated by the Father to the Son, on which
account he was ftyled in the ancient Creeds, God of Godt Light
of Light. In

( %9 )
In this refpect alfo the Head of Chrift is God: i Cor. 1 1. v. 3.
Chrift as Mediator and Redeemer, is but a iMTedw for the mani-
feftation of the EfTential Glory of God to the intellectual
world. Nay we do acknowledge his Dignity and Glory as Mediator
(in which that human Nature he alTum'd fo eminently fhares)
to be the Gift of God, and fruit of the Father's infinite com
placency in his forward and chearful Obedience unto Death, even
the Death of the Crofs. According to what he cites from the
Apoftle Paul, 2 Phil. 7, 8, 9.
So that in all thefe places there is no intimation of any fuch
Subjection or Inferiority of the Son, as fhou'd exclude him from
being in refpect of his Nature and EJfence the fame God with
the Father.
But the Author under this Head Angles out one Text, which
" he tells us is full of irrefiftible Evidence for pr oving jn Inferiority
" of the Son to his Father or to God, viz. 1 Cor. 15. from v. 24 to
" V. 29.
I fhall therefore recite the Text, and premife what may clear
the genuine fenfe and fcope of it, and then examine the In
ferences our Author draws from it.
The text runs thus,
24. Then cometh the end, when he (i. e. Chrift ) fhaU have de
liver d up the Kingdom to God, even the Father, when he fhaU have
put down all Rule, and all Authority and Power.
25. For he muft Reign till he hath put aU Enemies under his
feet. 26. The loft Enemy that fhall be deftroy'd is Death.
27. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he faith,
aU things are put under him, It is manifeft that he is excepted who
did put all things under him.
28. And when aU things fhall be fubdued uMQ him, then fhall the
Son alfo himfelf be fubject to him that put all things under him, that
God may be all in all.
I Now

( 3°).
Now in order to the clearing the fenfe and fcope of this
Text, I muft premife, That there is a twofold Kjngdom of Chrift,
His Fffential, and his Mediatory Kingdom.
His EJfential (which fome call his Natural) Kingdom, belongs
to him as he is tbe Eternal Word, by whom all things were made,
and without whom not any thing was made, that was made, i John 3!.
For this Dominion is the unalienable Refult of Creation, com*
mon to Father, Word, and H. Spirit. Now of this Kingdom there
fhall be no end. His Throne (on this account) is, in the ftrict-
eft fenfe, for ever and ever, i Heb. 8. Even that Throne which
he poflefles as the Lord who in the beginning laid the foundation of
this Earth, and the worlds qfwhofe hands the Heavens are. See v.io.
This Kingdom he can never give up. He, by whom the Worlds
were made, will for ever be the abfolute Proprietor and Lord of
thofe Worlds he gave Being to.
But befides this, There is a Mediatory Kingdom of Chrift, which
was erected on the occafion of our Apoftafy, and is the wonder
ful Expedient contriv'd in the divine Counfels for our Reco
very and Salvation. For after our Lord Jefus had in our Nature
made Attonement for Sin by becoming obedient to Death, even
the Death of the Crofs ; He was in that nature highly exalted,, had
all Power and Authority in Heaven and Earth committed to him, was
made Head of his Church, and Head over all things to it; nay has
Angels, Principality s and Powers fubjebted to him {a). So that the
Adminiftration of all Affairs is in his facred Hands. Now the
Eftablifhment of this Kingdom we readily grant to be a free
act of God the Father, who is therefore faid to appoint it to him.
In this fenfe God his God has anointed him, and made him
both Lord and Chrift (b). But this Kingdom is fo far from be
ing inconfiftent with his true Deity, that without it, the hu-

(a) II Phil. 8, 9, &c XXVIII Matth. i8t I Eph. 21, 22.
(b) IHebr. 9. HAas36.
man

( 3* )
man Nature were abfolutely incapable of managing fo univer-
fal and extenfive a Dominion which reaches both to this vifible,
and to the fuperior Invifible World (c).
Now if this Paffage of the Apoftle muft be underftood of this
Mediatory Kjngdom, 'tis Evident, that his Inferiority to the Father
in refpect of this his Mediatory Office and Kjngdom, will no way*
prove his being Inferior to him in refpect of his Nature and Ef-
fential Perfections. So that we might difmifs the Author's Rea-
fonings, as not reaching the Matter in Difpute. But fince. he
lays fo great a Strefs on 'em, let us briefly confider 'em.
i. He obferves, " That God is excepted out of thofe things that
" are put under the Feet of Chrift, and that becaufe it was he that
" put them under him. All this we freely grant.
But our Author here enquires, " How comes it to pafs,that 'tis
" fo evident a thing that another muft be the Author of this Triumph
" of Chrift ? Why might it not be done by himfelf independently as
" the fupreme God, and then there need have been no Exception of
" any one Being out of aU the things under him ? But the Apoftle
" knew that J. Chrift muft needs triumph by a Power derived from
" God, to whom it was moft eminently to be afcrib'd. And then to
cc one who had fuch Thoughts, It was manifeft, That there muft be one
" excepted from aU the things under him, becaufe he muft needs be
" above Chrift, who enables him tofubdue aU things, or makes him
" a God over all.
Anfw. We grant that the Father is the Author of this Dig
nity and Triumph of our Exalted Lord Jefus. And there is
this evident Reafon why the Eternal Word fhou'd not confer this
Dignity on the Human Nature, to which it was united, but the
Father only, becaufe in this Oeconomy, The Father alone fu-
ftains the Character of Supreme Lawgiver, The Son only that of
Mediator. And as fuch he was to act only by a power derived

(Y) I Rev. 1 8. For Hides fhou'd there be rendred the Vn/een World, or InvifibU
Swe, equally including the Mwftons cf Glory, and tbe Time cf Torment.
form

( 30
from the Father, who in this refpect is confider'd as above htm.
But this dos by no means prove, that the Word or Son is not God
by EJfence. And for the Juthor'sPhvaie of Chrift's being made by
the Father, God over aU, we look upon it as both irrational and
wholly unfiiptural. A Made Creator, or a Made Self-exiftent Being
is a Contradi&ion in Philofophy. And a Made God is a New No
tion unknown to Scriptural Divinity. For a Made God is ijy »d-
ture No God, and fuch as are by nature no Gods we are neither
oblig'd to own nor ferve, Gal. 4. 8. Of which more hereafter.
2. The Author obferves, " That the Son fhatt deliver up this
" Kingdom to God the Father only, fince it was the Father who gave
" him aU Power in Heaven and Earth, &c.
We grant it, That as this Mediatory Kingdom was the Gift
of the Father, and was defign'd only to be an Adminiftration of
a temporary Continuance, till the Reafon of firft Erecting it
fhould ceafe v fo when the great Ends of it are attained, when
the Myftical Body of Chrift fhall be corapleated, all Enemies
fubdued, the World judg'd, and the Salvation of all given to
our B. Lord by the Father fully confummated, Then the Work
of Chrift as Mediator of Reconciliation fhall be finifh't (As the
Phyfitian's Work in the Hofpital is over when all bis Patients axe
perfectly recover'd and cur'dj. And then the derived Power of
Chrift as Mediator will be return 'd into the Father's Hands . tho'
our Lord himfelf fhall on the account of it, forever inherit the
Prailes of his Ranfom'd People. But ftill all this makes no
thing againft his Divine Nature, as he is the Eternal Word.
3. The Author farther obferves from this Text, " That the Son
" himfelf fhaU be fubject to him that puts aU. things under him, i. e.
" (to God hk Father ) -, that God may be all in all, i. e. his fubje-
" ttion fhall be then manifefted by an open folemn Acknowledgment
" of it, when he fhall recognize the Supremacy of the Father in that
tl publick Act of Surrender, &c. and hereupon he concludes, Can any
'J thing be more expreffive of an Inequality between God and Chrift ?
Anfxv. We freely grant, That when the Mediatory Kingdom of

( 33 )
of Chrift is deliver'd up, That Human Nature in which he ad
miniftred it fhall appear in the fame State of Subjection to the
Father as Angels and Glorified Saints do. So that as Chrift was
before AU in AU (in the Adminiftration of all affairs relating
both to the Church, and the World, Col. 3. 11.) So now all things
will revert to their natural order. And God eflentially confi-
der'd (as inclufive of Father, Son, and H. Spirit) fhall be All in
All for ever ; there being no need of fuch a Mediator between
God and his Saints, when they are rais'd to a State of finlefs
Perfection. But our Author being aware of this Anfwer has endeavour'd
to obviate it. Accordingly he propofes it by way of Ob
jection to his Argument.
" It will (faith he) be faid by fome, that by the Son is meant here '
" the Son of Man, or Chrift as Man, while as God he fhall not be
" fuhjett to the Father.
To this he anfwers, Ci that as there is no Intimation of any fuch
<s Diftinction between tbe two pretended Natures of the Son here,
" fo there is enough in the Words to fhew, That they are fpoken of
" him in his higheft Capacity and Character. Infomuch that Mr.
si Claude maintains it to be true of the Son of God as to his fup-
" pofed Divine Nature. But tho' there is no need of fuppofing
" Juch a Divine Nature (which Ithinktbe Text plainly contradicts)
" yet his' Reafons will holdfo far as to prove, That the words jpea\
" of Chrift under the higheft Character he bears under the Name of
" Son. Mfw. If the Author had dealt fairly by Mr. Claude, he fhou'd
not only have reprefented his Expofition of thefe Words, but
what he offers to fhew, That that Subjection of the Eternal Son
of God to the Father, which he allows, is confiftent with his Di
vinity. And fhou'd then have refuted his Expofition, and not
expected,That we fhou'd take it for granted on his bare word,
That the Text contradicts fihrift's having fuch a Divine Nature.
Nor do I wave that Expofition as indefenfible, fince that SubjeBton
K "lay

(34)
may be underftood of the Son's Inferiority to the Father in re
fpect of the Order of Subfifting and AUing, being then manifefted.
But fince I prefer the other Expofition, I fhall examine the Rea
fons thy Author fubjoins to prove, That the Words muft be
underftood of the Son in his higheft Capacity and CbaraBer.
His firft Reafon is " Becaufe 'tis not faid, the Son of Man, but
" the Son abfolutely, even the Son himfelf, with great Emphafis, q. d.
u as great and glorious as he is with aU his Grandure and Power.
Anfw. The Son is the Name of the Perfon of Chrift, and tho*
it be often apply'd to him with reference to his Divine Nature,
yet 'tis fometimes manifeftly apply'd wi*h refpect to his Human
Nature. 'Tis fo 5 John 22. 27. And tho', he faith, That it
undoubtedly implys all that comes under the Title of Son ; I
do as pofitively affirm, That it dos not fo always , and fhall
afterwards particularly fhew it dos not. from Mark 13. 32.
Nay, tho' the Apoftle add the Son himfelf, by way of Empha
fis, yet this will not prove that he includes his higheft. Character^
but only refers to his Kingdom and Power as Mediator, which he
had defcrib'd before. Even this Son himfelf who fhaU Reign
till he have put down all Authority and Power, fhall then himfelf be
fubjeSh His fecond Reafon is, " That his Subjection being oppos'd to
" his Reign, both muft be underftood of the fame Subject.. Be fure
' the delivering up the Kiugdom can only be done by the fame to
" which it was committed, and by which it was managed. Now I
il fhaU allow that only in his human Nature Chrift cou'd give up his
" Kingdom, becaufe 'tis as Man delegated and inhabited by God
l( that he manages this Kingdom.
Anfw. To make this Argument cogent, The Author muft
'¦ affect, That Chrift's Reign as Mediator includes his higheft chara
cter. But this I deny. His divine Nature is a higher capacity
than his Office of Mediator.
And tho we grant him, That the delivering up the Kingdom
can only be done by him to whom it is committed, and by
whom

( 3f )
whom 'tis manag'd, yet we do not fay, as the Author wou'd
feign for us, That Chrift cou'd give up his Kingdom only as Man.
For he will do it as Mediator. 'Tis not as meer Man, but as
God Man, that he fways and manages his Mediatory Kjngdom,
and fhall deliver it up, tho 'tis only in the human Nature that he
will be fubjett. And therefore his Vindication of the Unita
rians from this ground, who think our Lord Jefus a fufficient Sa
viour, tho he be not the fupreme God, is it felf groundlefs ( As I
fhall have occafion to fhew when he re affumes and profecutes
this Argument at p. 14).
I fhall only take notice of what he adds at the clofe of this
Reafon •,
" that the Delivering up the Kjngdom to God the Father makes
" it plain, There is no God the Son, in the fame fenfe, or the fame
" fupreme EJfence with the Father. Becaufe if there were, then he
" ought not to be excluded from this Glory of having fuch open ho-
" mage paid to him, which is here appropriated to the Father only.
" And fince the Apoftle fpeaks of the fame God (whom he explains
" to be the Father) to the ejid of this difcourfe, and faith, He fhall .
" be aU in aU, How evidently do 's he fhew him to be far beyond aU .
" that are not God the Father, whatever charaBer elje they bear. So
tl then J. Chrift in his higheft capacity is inferior to the Father,
" How can he be the fame God to which he is fubject, or of the .
" fame Rank ^d Degree ?
Anfw. The whole of the Mediation of Chrift being a volun
tary Difpenfation 5 and the Father, Son, and H. Spirit, having dif"
ferent parts afcrib'd to 'em in the great affair of our Redemp
tion and Salvation •, 'Tis no abfurdity to fuppofe that each of
'em may have a glory accruing from thence that is peculiarly
his own. We are fure, the B. Redeemer has fo, V. Rev. 9, 10.
And fo has the Father, 2 Phil. 9, 10, n. And in the text be
fore us. And yet no -Inferiority of Chrift to the Father can
thence be inferr'd, but what relates to his Office of Mediator,
which I have already fhewn, imports no inferiority in refpect of
nature

( 3* )
nature and effential perfections. So that the Delivering up the
Kingdom peculiarly to the Father do's not make it plain, There
is no God the Son in the fame fupreme Efftnce with the Father.
And for Chrift's Subjection, I have already fnggefted that it re
fers to his human Nature. And our Author barely afTerts with
out proof, that God's being All in All, is to be appropriated to
the Father to the exclufion of the Eternal Word and H. Spirit.
So that the evidence our Author pretended to bring us from
this Text againft our Saviour's Divinity is fo far from being ir-
refiftible, that 'tis not fo much as dijcernible. The Text evidently
refers to Chrift's Mediatory Kjngdom, in the Adminiftration
whereof we freely own he bears a character inferior to that of
the Father, but without any Inequality in the common Effential
propertys of the divine Nature.
The Author under this Head (viz. Of Chrift's having a God
above him) proceeds to give us (as he pretends) the Scriptural Ac
count ofthe Godhead of the B. Jefus, viz. " Becaufe he is invefted
" with a God-like Authority and Power from the fupream God his
lc Father. Thus (faith he) when he was accufed by the Captious
" Jews for ajfuming the Character of the Son of God (which they
" perverfely wou'd ftretch, as if it imply' d an Equality with God) X
" John 3 5, 36. He explains in what fenfe only he juftify'd it, viz.
" As one whom the Father had Janbtified, i. e. caUed to a greater
" Office, and honour'd with a higher Commijjion than thofe Magi-
" ftrates on whom the Scripture fo freely beftows the Title of Gods.
Anfw. That our Author has perverted the true Scope of this
place, will appear if we impartially confider the whole Context.
Our Lord Jefus at v. 28. argues the Security of his Sheep in
his powerful hand from which none cou'd pluck 'em, and adds that
his Father was greater than aU, and that none cou'd pluck 'em out of
the Fathers hands, and then immediately fubjoins, / and the Fa
ther are One, v. 30. Hereupon the Jews took up Stones to
ftone him as a Blafphemer, becaufe that he being a Man made him-
, felf God. So that when he faid, / md the Father are One, they
appre-

(37)
apprehended the Meaning of Chrift to be that they were One
in nature. Now 'tis evident, that our B. Saviour dos not difown
this Senfe they put on his Words, wliich he both, might moft
eafily have done by telling 'em, He did not mean One in nature,
but, One in DeJign and Confent -, and indeed ought to have done
for the Vindication of the incommunicable Glory of God, had
he. been only a Dignified Creature. On the contrary, our Savi
our argues from the Leffer to the Greater, that if Magiftrates
were caUed Gods, it cou'd be no Blafphemy for him, whom the
Father had fanBified andfent into the World, to fay, that he was the
Son of God. But whom did he intend to reprefent himfelf to
be by this Character of the Son of God? This he clearly inti
mates in the two following Verfes, which our Author is pleafed
wholly to overlook, tho' 'tis manifeft that they contain our
Lord's Defence of the Expreffion that firft offended the Jews.
To juftifie his Character of the Son of God, he refers 'em to his
Works, which were the apparent Effects of a Divine Almighty
Power. If I do not the Works of my Father, believe me not. But
if I do-, tho' ye believe not me, believe the Works, that ye may kjiow
and believe, that the Father is in me and I in him. q. d. Since my
Works are the fame as my Father's, this fhould convince you of
the Truth of what I faid, That 1 and my Father are One, even
One in Nature-, fuch Almighty Works being the genuine Pro
ductions of an Almighty Power that is both in the Father, and
in Me. So that our Lord dos not lay the whole ftrefs of his
being the Son of God upon his being SanBify'd and Sent -, thofe
Expreffions only contain the Defcription of his Perfon by his
Officiybut do not intimate the Foundation of his Title. For that
our Lord evidently referrs 'em to that truly Divine and Almigh
ty Power, that difplay'd it felf in his Works.' But this the Au
thor thought it not convenient for his purpofe to take notice
of, thb' -he might eafily forefee it takes off the whole Force of
his Argument, and eftablifhes that very account of the true
Deity of Chrift, which we contend for.
L The

(3«)
The Author argues next frorn I Ueb. 8, p. " When he is there
u called' dod, 'tis explained in whats fenfe, or of what fort, of God.
11 'tis' to be underftood by faying, that his Qod (intimating that fo
" had ca God over him ) had; anointed him with Oyl, i. e. had in-
" vefted him with Royal Power and. Dignity (as Kings were inftalfd
" in Office by anointing 'em with Oyl among the Jews). Which is
" an Explication of hist Godhead d? Dominion. And this is J aid to
C( be above his Fallows, not fure above the Father and H.Spirit,(whick
" only"1 are pretended to be his Felhps as God, by thofe who under -
" jland it of the fupreme Godhead) but above all other fubordinate
i{ Beings. And he. concludes, This is one plain Scripture. Account
" of his being called God. For thefe things are Jpokfntto him, and
" of him under the CharaBer of God. 0 God thy Throne, v. 8. And
'{, he adds, j think Men fhou'd be well ajfur'd, on what, grpun/ls they
" go, before they afijign other Reafons of this CharaBer, fo different
" from ihf Scripture Account,
Anfw. To clear this paffage, I muft refer the Reader to what
Was premised it p. 5. That our Lord Jefus is a complex Subject,
including ( according to the common Faith ©f Chriftians) the
Eternal Word, the H\uman Nature, and the Office of Mediator. And
therefore very different things may be fpoken of him in re
ference, to his two different; Natures, and to his Office as Me
diator, Now the whole ftre-ngth of the Author's Argument turns
upon this, That whatever is here faid throughout the whole
Chapter concerning our B. Saviour, is fpoken of him in his
higheft capacity and charaBer. And therefore, that when the
Infpired Writer at v. 8, calls our Saviour God, he do's at v. 9*
affign the Reafon of his Godhead, viz. becaufe" he was by God his
God anointed with the Oyl of gladnefs above his fellows. But thefe
Suppofitibns on which our father's Argument is founded, I de
ny^ and need only ,haye recourfe to the Context, for the Re
futation of. , .
The Infpired Writer had at _«, 2. defcrib'd our BfSaphur^s the

( 39 )
the Son, the Heir of all things, and the Maker of the Worlds, or
Agw. (Even the fame Ages mention'd by the fame Author
XlHebr. 3. where they are evidently to be underftood of the
World or Univerje)-, and at v. 3, as the Brightnefs of the Father's
Glory, and exprefs Image of his Perfon or Subfiftence, and as uphold
ing all things by the word of his Power. (And that thefe expref-
fipns- refer to his pra?-exiftent and truly divine Nature, any judi
cious Reader may be fully fatisfy'd,, that will confuk Dr. Whit
by's Pamphrafe on this Epiftle -, for I muft at prefent attend to
the Author's Argument). At the end of i\ 3, he takes notice of
Chrift's Purging (or expiating) our fins (which was perform'd
by his becoming in our Nature our Sin-offering and Propitiation)
and of his Exaltation thereupon at the right hand ofthe Majefty
on high (which imports the Dignity he was advanc't to as Me
diator). So. that 'tis evident, That the infpir'd Writer fpeaks
of our Saviour, fometimes in. reference to his pra-exiftent Nature,
fometimes in reference to his Human, fometimes in reference to'
hisOffke and pigfiity as Mediator. But to defcend to the Paffage
alledg'd, tlie infpired Writer in the following Verfesi produces
feveral Inftances of his Preeminence and Superiority to the An
gels (the higheft rank of created Beings). He proves it from
the Title of Son, being given him in a higher Senfe than it was
ever given to thofe nobleft- of Creatures, at v. 5. From the
Homage and Worfhip due to him from the Angels themfelves' at
v. 6, 7. From the peculiar Title of Qod afcrib'd to him, and
that on the account of his Effential Dominion and Kjngdom 5
at v. 8. to the Son he faith, thy Throne, Q\God, is for ever and ever*
Which Words cannot be true of Chrift's Kingdom as Mediatory
which fhall ceafe and be delivered, up to the Father. But of his
Mediatory Kingdom he fpeaks at v. 9. Where the Reafon of
it is affign'd, becaufe he loved Righteoufnefs, and, hated Iniquity,
(i. e. becaufe our Lord Jefus had in his humbled State perform'd
a Jinlefs-Obedience to the Divine Laws in our Nature.) There
fore. <?0^«<jr04 had anointed 1. him with >the Oil of Joy above his Fel
lows ~

( 40 )
'iows-, i. e, had exalted him in that very nature, wherein he had
perform'd that Obedience to a fupereminent degree of Glory
and Joy above all his fellow-creatures, above both Men and
Angels. So that God's being called his God refers only to his
Human Nature, to which the Joy fet before him, as the Reward
of his Sufferings did belong. (See Hebr. 12. 2.) and there
fore this Expreffion dos not at all import any Superiority of
the Father to the Son as to his Divine Nature. Nay, as to
thofe who fuppofe (which yet I fee no neceffity or occafion for)
That the Father is call'd his God in his higheft Capacity, yet even
this wou'd inferr no more than the Father's being above him
in refpect to the Order of Subfiftence between the Sacred three,
(on . which account, the Son is call'd God of God in the ancient
Greeds, as was obferv'd before). But this wou'd argue no In
feriority of the Son to the Father in point of EJfence ; and much
lefs, That he was only call'd God on the account of his Office
and Kjngdom as Mediator, or on the account of his being a
dignify 'd Creature. For that he was God in a much higher fenfe
is manifeft from the> very following words at v. 10, 11, &c.
where the Work, of Creation is afcrib'd to him, which plainly
fets hirri above the rank of Creatures. (As I fhall anon more
fully fhew.)
Since therefore the Author is miftaken in what he pretends
to deliver as the Scripture^ account of the Godhead of the B.Jefusv
we may juftly leave him to take his own Caution, (which he
thinks himfelf qualify'd as DiSlator to give to the Chriftian
World), " that men fhou'd be weU affured on what grounds they go
" in this matter. We go on no lefs grounds, than the Scrip
ture's giving him the moft incommunicable Titles of God -, ap
plying manifold paffages of the Old Teftament to him, that are
evidently fpoken of the Supreme God, ^particularly that from
the 102 Pfal. apply'd to our Lord, I Heb. 10.) afcribing truly
divine PerfeBions and. Worfhip to him. ( Of which more after
wards). Our Author goes upon thefe two paffages, which, (as I
have

(4i )
have fhewn), do both (confider'd in their reference to the Con
text) make againft him:
The Author concludes this Head by endeavouring to pre-
poffefs his Reader againft the Argument for the true Deity of
Chrift drawn from that noted paffage II Phil. 6, &c. Of which
he faith,
" As to that Place II Phil. 6. which is corruptly render 'd in om
« tranftation, He thought it no Robbery to be Equal with
« God, It is confeft by Adverfaries themfelves, that it fhou'd he
" read thus, viz. that he did not affume or arrogate, or fnatch at,
<• or covet an Equality with God. the words are never known to
« he us'd many other fenfe, as is fhewn by Dr. Tillotfon*« his Ser-
" mons againft the Socinians ; Alfo by Dr. Whitby in his Expofi-
" tion on the place and vthers. So that this rather denies then af-
" ferts Chrift's Equality to God, tho ftiUhe was in the Form of God,
" as that notes the outward Refemblance of him in his mighty power
" and work/, &c. which is the conftant Meaning of Form in the
{* New teftament.
Anfw. On this Paragraph of the Author's I have thefe three
Reflections to make, which I am forry he has given me too
juft occafion for.
i. That it looks like too great a Degree of Confidence, to
charge our Tranflation as corrupt in this place.
He knows well that the generality of Griticks agree with
us in this Verfion of the words. And 'tis apparent to all that
underftand the Greek Language, that a.^a.y^n fignifies Robbery,
and try»f9-*i to think, or Judge. And what tho in Plutarch
and Heliodorus the Phrafe be us'd in a different fenfe ( which
yet is lefs agreeable to the Primary fignification of the words
themfelves ) will it follow That the Ap. Paul ufed 'em in that
fenfe ? Efpecially if we add that among all the Inftances out
of thofe Authors for this fenfe of trie phrafe, there is none
that fully anfwers the Cafe before us. So that I fee no co
gent Reafon for our receding from the moft obvious fenfe of
M the

the words. r. And that plainly overturns tke ^^Senti
ments. But .j
2. I can fcarce look jjpon it any better then a difingenuous
Prevarication in our 4-»Mor, to cite thofe two Excellent Wri
ters ( the late Arch-B$hop of Canterbury and Dr. Whitby ) as
rejecting the common Tranflation of this Phrafe, without .gi
ving us a fair, and iuft account of their Expofition of it. For
he knows well enough/that they give fuch an Interpretation
of it, as equally aflerts the true Deity ot Chrift with our own
Tranflation. So that they are far from giving up this Place to
the Unitarians, as our Author's Words would infinuate to an ,
unwary Reader. If with the Archbifhpp we fuppofe the Form of
God to be anExpreffion parallel to;' thofe two oppofite ones, tke
Form of a Servant, and the Likenefs of Men, tbe former dos as
truly imply our Lord Jefus to be Partaker of a divine Nature as
the latter implies him to be truly partaker of the Humane. And
according to this Expofition, The Ap. might very, well mention
it as an Inftance of our B. Saviour's admirable Humility, that he
did not in his humbled State affect an Equality vaiih. God^ but
rather veil'd his Divine Glory in the mean difguife of our Sinful
Flejh. Nay, if we fhould take //of?t; to be meant of Outward Ap
pearance or Refemblance ( as our Author wou'd underftand it )
He knows that Dr. Whitby has ( according to that, fenfe ofthe
word ) given us this clear Expofition of the Place, viz. That
Our Lord Jefus as the Eternal Word did appear under the
Old teftament with all the External Markj of Divine Majefty and
Glory, But that at his Incarnation he did not affeB to appear in
this Likenefs of God, But emptied himfelf, ( i. e. devefted himfelf
of all this External Glory) and took, on him theForm or Appearance
of a Servant, (i.e. Of one that came to Minifter, and not io be mini-
fired unto, as our Lord himfelf feems to explain the Notion of
a Servant, xx Matth. 2%.) being ( for that purpofe ) made in
the likemfs of Men. Accordingly the fore-mention'd Expofitor to

( 43 )
to confirm this interpretation, fhe'ws, i. That the Appearance or
Likenefs of God* under tbe Old Teftament was reprefented in a bright
\hinijig Cloud,- or Light,1 or in a Flame >of Fire, and in the Atten
dance of Angels'.* See' Vii Dan. 9. 10. xxiv Exod. 16, 17. v.
Deut. 22, 24."' iii Heb. 3, 4, '&c. '< 2 That Chrift as the Eternal
.Word did appear in this Likenefs to Mofes and tke Patriarchs of old.
This (he tells us ) was' the Opinion both of the Antient Jews
and .of the. Primitive Chriftians -, And is clearly intimated in
the Scriptures ( As may appear particularly by comparing xxi
Numb, j, 6. with 1 Cor. x. 9: Where that Jehovah whom the
Israelites are faid to fpeak againft and tempt, is by the Ap. Paul
a ffirm'd to have been Chrift. See alio. xi Heb. 26. ,3. Tbat-af-
i-ey' his Afcenfion Our B. Saviour did reajfume this Divine Form, this
Majeftick.Splendour and Glory. See vii ABs 55. xxvi ABs.13 .
1 Rev. 14, 16. 2 theff. 1. 7, 8.
Now this Expofition do's evidently imply, That our B. Sa
viour had a pm-exiftent Nature before he affum'd. the human,
'and that that pra-exiftent Nature, was Divine, both becaufe that
'External Glory and that attendance vf Angels, was always reckon'd
the peculiar Mark of the divine Prefence -, and becaufe He that
thus appear'd under the Old teftament, is not only frequently
ftyl'd Jehovah, but dos every where lay claim to divine per fe-
Bions and homage.
So that tho we fhou'd read the words, who being (before) in
the external appearance of God, did not affeB a likenefs to God, &c.
They do by no means favour either the Anion or Socinian Caufe,
but clearly overthrow it.
3 . I fhall only add, That the Author has offer'd an Expofition
of this paffage (borrow'd from the Socinim Writers) that is no
way agreeable to the text or Context.
By the Form of Gdd he'underftands the Outward Refemblance
of Chrift to God in his mighty Power and Works. And fo makes
it an Argument of Chrift's Humility, that tho he appear'd like
God in his miraculous works, yet he did not prefend to an Equa
lity with him. Now

( 44 )
Now this Expofition is liable to thefe following ObjeSUons.^
x. That this Power of Working Miracles is no where in Scrip
ture call'd the Form of God. Nay according to this Expofition
Mofes and feveral Prophets under the Old teftament, and the
Apoftles under the New, might as truly be faid to be in the Form
of God as our B. Saviour, fince they wought Miracles as well as
He. 2. Whatever be meant by the Form of God, 'Tis evident,
That our Lord Jefus in his humbled State empty' d or devefted him
felf of it, and in oppofition thereto, took, on him the Form of a Ser
vant. But He never in his humbled State devefted himfelf of
*ihe power of working Miracles, but exerted it, not only through
the whole courfe of his Life, but even at his Apprehenfton, (a)
Nay when dying on the Crofs. For even then the Sun was
darkned, the Veil of the temple rent in twain, The Earth quak*t,
and the Rocks were rent, and the Graves opened, and many Bodys
ofthe Saints which flept arofe. See XXVII Matth. 45, 51, 52.
Infomuch as thefe Effects of his divine Power forc't that Con-
feffion from the Centurion and thofe with him, truly this was the
Son of God, v. 54.-
3. The Text plainly intimates, That Chrift was in the Form
of God before he took.on him the Form of a Servant, and was made
in the likenefs of Men, Whereas he appear'd in the likenefs of
Men, and converft among men, many years before he ever ex
erted his Power of Working Miracles. So that tlie Apoftle fhou'd
have rather faid according to this Expofition, That Chrift ha
ving firft taken on him the Fofm of a Servant, and being made in
the likenefs of Men, did aft&fwfods appear in the Form* or Likenefs
of God, and yet did not fnatch at, or arrogate to himfelf an Equality
to him. And whereas to avoid this Argument, The Socinians
pretend, That by his taking on him the Form of a Servant, is

(t) XVIII John 6. XXII Lulie f 1. to

. (4f )
to be underftood, his fuffering the punifhments and Death of a
Slavey The Vanity of that Evafim appears, both becaufe fuffer
ing Punifhment is in no tolerable fenfe the Form of a Servant,
but of a Criminal. For a Man may fuffer it without being a
Servant at all : And becaufe Chrift's taking on him the Form of a
Servant is conjoyn'd with his being made in the Likgnefs of Men -,
And ( to add no more ) becaufe Chrift's fuffering the common
Death of Slaves is added by the Apoftle, as a farther degree of
his Humiliation, after he was found in the fafhion or habit of a
Man. at v. 8. And being found in fafhion as a Man, he be
came obedient unto Death, even the Death of the Crofs. This
is Evidently a diftinct ftep or Degree of his Humiliation from
that of his taking on him the Form of a Servant, and being made
in the Likenefs of Men.
Once more,
4. This Expofition greatly weakens the force of the Apoftle's
Argument for Lowlinefs of Mind from the Example of Chrift's
Marvellous Humility and Condefcention.
The Ap. according to the Author makes it an Argument of
Extraordinary Humility in our B. Saviour,. That when he was
like God in working Miracles, yet he did not arrogate to himfelf an
Equality with God. But where is the Humility, that a meer Man,
( who according to him cou'd work no Miracle by any power of
his own ) fhou'd not affeB an Equality to his Eternal and Almighty
Maker, between whom and him there is an Infinite diftance and
difproportion ? Is not this as if we fhou'd commend the Hu
mility of the Lord Mayor of Dublin becaufe he never afpired
to the Imperial Crown of thefe Three KJngdoms ? Is it fo rare an
Inftance of Lowlinefs of Mind, that a Man fhou'd abftain from
the higheft degree poffible of ftupid Blafphemy ? Let us apply
this to the Apoftles, Our Lord foretold 'em, that they fhoud do
greater Works then his, XIV John 12. So that according to our
Author's Expofition, They were as truly in the Form of God as
our Saviour himfelf, ( if that muft be underftood of the Power
N , of

(40
of Working Miracles ). Nay if Chrift be only a Creature, they
no more derive that power from him then he from ^w, but
both from the Etffor. Now what fhou'q" we think of the Ap.
Paul who himfelf fhar'd in this power, if he had propos'd this
as a marvellous Inftance of his own and Barnabas's Humility,
that when the Lycaonians cry'd out, The Gods are come down to
us in the Likenefs of Men, and accordingly actually offer'd to
pay 'em Divine Worfhip, They refus'd it, and did not pre
tend to an Equality with God ? Shou'd we think this any iuch
Extraordinary Inftance of Lowlinefs of Mind 1 Is there any great
need of propofing fuch an Example to our Imitation, when no
Man in his Wits feems capable of fuch monftrous Arrogance ?
But now according to the laft Expofition given of the words,
The Argument drawn from the Example of our Lord is moft
cogent and ftrong, viz. That He the Eternal Word who had
always before appeared with the marks of Divine Ma)efty and
Glory, did not now affeB fuch a Likenefs to God, but ftript
himfelf ( of all that Glory ) to take on him the ( contemptible )
Form of a Servant, and to be made in the Likenefs of Men. : This
is an Inftance both of moft aftonifhing Condefcention and Humility,
and of a truly Divine Charity -, That the Lord of Glory fhou'd
for our fakes ftoop fo low, and appear in fo mean a difguife. 'Tis
fuch an unparallel'd Inftance of it as may at once command
our higheft wonder and our moft Zealous Imitation.
Upon the whole it appears, that whether way we Translate
thofe words £ He thought it no Robbery to be Equal with God J or
I He affeBed not a Likenefs to God 2 The Text ftands as a firm
unfhaken Proof of the True Deity of our B. Saviour.
Having vindicated this Argument from the Divine Titles given
to our B. Saviour, from the Author's Objections, I might here
inforce it from the other Head of Divine Worfhip, But that Ar
gument will appear with better Advantage, when we have
confider'd, That the peculiar PerfeBions and Works of God (the
true Foundation of Divine Worfhip) axe afcrib'd to him.
I come therefore to the j

( 47 )
lid. Argument for the true Deity of Chrift, from the Incom
municable Attributes and Works of God, that are in the H. Scrip
tures afcrib'd to him.
I join both thefe together, becaufe the Incommunicable
Works of God plainly demonftrate fuch Divine PerfeBions to be
long to him by whom they are perform'd.
As to thefe Divine PerfeBions or Attributes the Author tells us,
" that our B. Lord Jefus dif claims thofe infinite PerfeBions that be-
" long only to the Supreme God of Gods. And adds, 'tis moft
u certain, That if he want one, or any of thefe PerfeBions that are
" effential to the Deity, He is not God in the chief fenfe-, and if we
" find him difclaiming the one, he cannot challenge the other, &c;
Anfw. We willingly put the Controverfy on this iffue, and
freely grant that he cannot be the Supreme God to whom the
infinite PerfeBions effential to' the Deity do not belong, Tho as
to what the Author fuggefts, That if he want any one of 'em, He
is not the Supreme God -, We may with equal reafon infer on
the other Hand, That if it be proved he has any;0#<? infinite Per-
feBion that belongs to the Deity, It will prove his being the Su
preme God. For' all divine PerfeBions as they are infinite, are a-
like incommunicable to any other Being.
The Author fixes on thofe three Perfections of Abfolute Om
nipotence, Abfolute Goodnefs, and Abfolute Omnifcience.
I obferve, That he has omitted that Perfection of Eternity
that firft offers it felf to one's view and confideration. , 'Tis
probable he was willing to avoid that Controverfy between
thofe Unitarians that efpoufe the Arrian, and thofe that follow
the Socinian Scheme about our Saviour's prx-exiftence. For I ima
gine the Author himfelf thinks the Socinim Doctrine in this
Point indefenfible, and therefore feems to allow of a pr<e-exiftent
Nature in our B. Lord^ at p. 2. And be* is not the only Wri
ter among the late Unitarians that allows ( what they call ) an
ante-mundane exiftence oi our B. Saviour. But fince he has of
fer'd nothing to implead his Eternity/I. ihall refer the Reader to
!< '"> the

(48)
the Arguments alledg'd for it by thofe that have wrote on this
Controverfy, and fhall only add, That the Pfalmift knew of no
other Being that exifted before the world but God, when he
thus defcribes his Eternity, Before the Mountains were brought forth,
or ever thou hadft formed the Earth, Thou art from everlafting to ever-
lafting God, xc Pfal. v. 2.
I fhall therefore confine my felf to thefe three PerfeBions,
which the Author pretends that our Lord Jefus difclaims. I
begin I. With that of abfolute and underiv'd Omnipotence-, which fas
the Author tells us) " is one great and peculiar Perfettion of tbe
" Deity. He who cannot work a^ Miracles, and do what he lift of
•l himfelf, without help from another, can never be the Supreme
« God, &c.
Now in treating on this branch of the Argument, I fhall
Firft Prove, That the Scriptures do afcribe fuch abfolute Omni
potence to our B. Lord, and Secondly examine what the Author
has alledg'd to fhew, That our B. Saviour difclaims it.
Firft I fhall prove, That the Scriptures do afcribe this abfo
lute Omnipotence to our Lord Jefus, or do attribute that Almighty
Power to him that is the incommunicable PerfeBion of the
Deity. And becaufe the power of Caufes dos beft appear by the
Greatnefs of* their EffeBs, I fhall chiefly infift on this one Argu
ment (among many others which the Scriptures fuggeft) which
I take to be both clear and conclufive in this matter, I mean
that drawn from the Creation of the World. And to make it
good, I fhall
I. Prove, That the /£ Scriptures do afcribe to our B. Lord the
Creation of the World, in the ufual fenfe, /. e. The Giving Being
to all the feveral Creatures contain'd in it.
II. That this Creation of the World argues the Almighty Power
of him that made it -, and confequently is (according to our Au
thor's conceffion) a folid. ; proof of. Jus, true Deity. Under

(49)
Under the former of thefe Heads I have the Socinim Unita
rians, under the latter the Arrian ones to oppofe.
i. I come to fhew, that tbe Holy Scriptures do afcribe to our
B. Lord the Creation of the World, in the common fenfe of the
words,/, e. That he gave Being to all the feveral Creatures con
tained in it.
Let us to clear this matter, take a grofs view of thofe paf
fages that affert this, and then more narrowly examine the
force of 'em.
Mofes begins his Hiftory of the Creation with thefe words,
In the beginning God made the Heavens and the Earth. I Gen. i:
St. John begins his Gofpel with thefe parallel ones, In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
-was God. the fame was in the beginning with God. AU things
were made by him, and without him was nothing made that was made.
And again at v. 10. the World was made by him.
And that St. John by aU things that were made by him, intends
aU things in Heaven and Earth, mention'd in the Mofaic account
of the Creation, is evident if we will allow his Sentiments to
have been the fame with St. Paul's, who tells us, that by him aU
things were Created that are in Heaven and that are in Earth. I Col.
i£. And becaufe Angels axe not mention'd in the Mofaic Ac
count of the Creation, leaft any fhou'd think them excluded
( As fome actually did, and even afcrib'd the Mofaic Creation
to 'em ) The Ap. adds aU things Vifible and Invijible, Whether
they be Thrones or Dominions or Principalities or Powers, all things
were Created by him and for him. And he is before aU things, and
by him aU things confift. And the fame Infpired Writer ( if we
fuppofe St. Paul the Author of the Ep. to the Hebrews) tells us^
that by him ( viz-, his Son ) God made the Worlds, Even thofe
Worlds which, as he tells us in the fame Epiftle, we underftand. by
Faith that they were framed by the Word of God. Compare I Heb.
2. with XI c 3 . And to put it as far as words can do, beyond
any reafonable Difpute, the fame Infpired Writer at v. io,n,
? O 12-

( f° ).
12. ofthe iCh. apply's to our B. Saviour thofe remarkable
words of the Pfalmift which fo manifeftly refer to the firft Crea
tion, Thou Lord in the beginning haft laid the Foundation of the
Earth, and the Heavens are the work °f *k> bands, they fhall perifb
but thou remaineft, and they aUfhaU wax old as a Garment, and as a
Vefture fhalt thou fold them up, and they fhall be changed 5 But thou
art the fame and thy years fail not.
Now, it is manifeft, That we are fo far from offering the
leaft violence to thefe paffages that we underftand 'em accord
ing to the plain obvious fenfe of the words, and their current
ufe and fignification thro the Scriptures, from which none
ought to recede in expounding 'em without cogent Neceflity.
They clearly and fully deliver our opinion, and we have no
occafion to ftrain 'em to reconcile 'em with our Sentiments
concerning our B. Lord.
But we cannot fay fo concerning our Adverfaries in this
point, The Socinian Unitarians, who are redue't to hard fhifts to
reconcile thefe paffages that afcribe the Creation of aU things in
Heaven and Earth, to our Lord Jefus, to their Opinion of him,
that he had no Exiftence at all tiU about 4000 years after the Ma
king ofthe World.
I muft therefore confider what they have alledg'd to avoid
the force of thefe Texts.
And I find 'em chiefly infifting on the two following Eva-
fions. I. They do as to all the foremention'd Texts ( except that
I Heb. 10, &c. ) alledge. That they are not to be underftood of
the Creation of this material World, but only of that Reformation
of Mankind, of that happy change of the Moral State and Condition
of the World, which they tell us, The Scriptures often exprefs
under the Notion of a New-Creation, and the Making New Hea
vens and New Earth.
Now againft this way of Expounding thefe fore-cited Paffa
ges, I have thefe following Arguments to offer. I. It

( fl )
I. It has been often objected to 'em, That this Expofition is
vohoUy new. All Chriftian Writers for 1500 years agreeing (the
Arrians themfelves, not excepted,) to underftand thefe paffages
as we do of the firft Creation. So that if the general Content
of the Chriftian Church in expounding thefe Texts be of any
weight, This Argument from Authority is full againft 'em. But
becaufe this Argument feems to weigh but little with any of
our late Unitarians, who on all occafions treat the Chriftian
Church with the utmoft contempt -, I fhall infift on fuch as are
drawn frpm the paffages themfelves -,
Therefore II. 'Tis a juft Prejudice againft this Expofition, that it puts a
very unufual and forced fenfe upon plain and clear Expreffions.
without any cogent Necefftty.
To make this good, I fhall prefent to the Reader the forer
cited Paffages with the Paraphrafe of our late Unitarians upon

*em.

For that 1 John 1, 2, 3, 10. I find it thus expounded in the
Sd ColleBion of Unitarian TraBs. TraB I. p. 9. " In the begin-
" ning of the Gojpel was the Word, that is, The Lord Chrift, who
" being the Bringer or Meffenger of God's WiU or Word, is there-
u fore caU'd the Word, as in this very Chapter he is call'd Life and,
" Light, becaufe he brought to men the Gofpel Light, and the means
" of Life Eternal. And the Word was with God, i. e. the
" Lord Chrift was taken up into Heaven to be inftruBed in all Points.
il relating to his Lmbaffage or Miniftry -, And the Word was
" God. In the Greek, 'tis, was a God. That is, It pie a fed God
" to communicate to the Lord Chrift, who is the Mediator or Bringer-
" of the New Teftament that Name above every Name, even the
*" Name or Appellation of God ; As he had formerly done to Mofes
tC the Mediator of the Old Teftament; and to divers others, 7 Exod. 1.
" 45 Pfal. 6, 11. And 8 2 Pfal. 6. 10 John 34, 35. 1 Sam. 28.
" 1 1, 12, 13, 14. By him were all things made, that is, AH things
" relating to the New-Creation were made (or were effected) by him.
" The.

( fO
« The World was made by him, in the Greeks was modelled by
" him : i. e. He reduc't alt things to a new and better Eft ate -, by
" his abolijhing Paganifm and judaifm, and introducing the Gofpel
" Oeconomy and State.
For the i Col. 16, &c. I find it thus Paraphras'd ift ColhB.of
Unitarian TraBs. TraB 12th. p. \6.
" Chrift is the Lord of every Creature, For by him are all both
<l vifibfe and invifible Creatures, even all Men and Angels mo-
<c dell'd and difpos'd, into a new order, being fubjeBed to him and
t( his Commands. As for Angels •, aU the Orders of 'em, whether
" they be Thrones or Dominions, None of 'em are exempted from
" his Power and Authority. He rules over 'em, ( Which is the
tc' meaning of v. 17.) And they are aU as it were compaBed into one
li Body under. his conduB. As for Men, as he is the beginning and
" firft born from the dead, fo he was alfo made Head of his Church
u his Body. So that in all things he has the preeminence -y He rules
" in Heaven and Earth over Angels, and over the Church, which is
" the fenfe of v. 18.
For that Text 1 Heb. 2. By whom alfo he made the Worlds.
They underftand by Worlds, the Gofpel Ages or Times.
For 1 Heb. 10, 11, fete They generally affert that 'tis not
apply'd to Chrift at all, or at moft only one claufe in the Text,
about the material Worlds perifhing and being chang'd.
As to all thefe Expofitions, I may juftly appeal to the com
mon fenfe of every Chriftian Reader, whether they do not at
firft view appear ftrain'd and forc't, and many of 'em far fetch't.
'Tis manifeft that the words in their moft obvious fenfe are to
be underftood of the firft Creation. Now this the Socinian Uni
tarians fuppofe to be a very dangerous Error. And yet 'tis evi
dent that the Infpired Writers might have eafily prevented this
Error which their Expreffions fo naturally lead us to, by faying,
All things were made new by Chrift, All things were created-by
him a-new. in Heaven and Earth. Or were new-modeU'd by him.
That by him God made the New-Age and Difpenfation of the
Gofpel.

( f3 )
Gojpel. And 'tis evident, That where the Infpired Writers do
fpeak of the change made in the Hearts of Men by Regeneration,
in allufion to the work of Creation, they do ufe fuch cautious
Expreffions as thefe, which plainly point us to this Metaphori
cal fenfe. Whereas according to them, The Infpired Writers,
in the paffages under our confideration, have needlefsly affect
ed to fpeak in ambiguous Language, fo very liable to be mifun-
derftood, that without an harfh and forced Expofition, it muft
needs miflead and pervert the Judgment of their Readers in a
matter of the higheft Confequence. And none can well fup
pofe this of 'em that believes they wrote by Divine Infpiration;
It had been objected to 'em by the late Archbifhop of Canter
bury, That a Man might with the fame dexterity of Wit and
Fancy pervert the words of Mofes that fpeak of the Firft Crea
tion, and interpret 'em of the Moral Change made in the World by
the Mofaic Difpenfation, as they do the words of St. John in the
beginning of his Gofpel. And 'tis obfervable What our late
Unitarians reply to it. 'Tis this, That if it had been faid in
•*" Genefis. In the beginning Mofes Created the Heavens and
<c the Earth, &c They wou'd have thought themfelves oblig'd to in-
" terpret that Chapter of the Moral Change made in the World hy the
"Mofaic Difpenfation. And they thinly themfelves equally oblig'd to
" Interpret the beginning of St. John'* Gofpel this way, becaufe they
" find the Evangelift fpeakjngjff the Lord Chrift who is confeffed
" to have been dMan, and yet faith of him, All things were made
" by him, And again, The World was made by him. Here-
" upon the Socinians think, it wild Extravagance to imagine more
u Gods or New-Creators, &c. See 3d Collect. Tract I. p. 47-
Anfw. Can any thing be a more notorious begging the Quefti
on then this ? They are ask't, Why we may not interpret the
ift oi Genefis, as they do the firft of St. John ? The fum of the
Anfwer is, becaufe in Genefis The Creation there mention'd is a-
fcrib'd to God, and not to Mofes, Whereas in St. John 'tis afcrib'd to
one confeffed to be a Man. Is it fo ? Is it Evident that the Evan-
P gelift

( f4)
gelift by the Word that was with God, and was God, that was the
Light that lighteth every Man that comes into the World, &c. un-
derftands only a Man? Do not his words rather in their moft
obvious fenfe defcribe a higher Being ? Does he not ex
prefly call him God ? Does he not tell us afterwards at v. 14.
That this Word was made Flefh, and dwelt among us, &c. and there^
by plainly diftinguifh the Word from that frail and mortal Hu
man Nature he affum'd in order to his converfe with the Sons of
Men ? So that there is nothing here that fhou'd force 'em to
put this unufual and harfh conftruction upon the plain words
of the Evangelift, but a violent paffion for their pre-conceiv'd
Opinion, That J. Chrift is only a Man, and that he is only call'd
the Word becaufe he was the Bringer of the Will and Word of
God, In which fenfe every Prophet might affume the fame Ti
tle and Character to himfelf, which the Scriptures elfewhere
appropriate to the Son of God as his peculiar and moft Uluftri-
ous Character, and fpeak of it as A Name that none knew but he
himfelf, XIX Rev. 12, 13. But I muft add.
III. Their Expofition is inconfiftent with the genuine fenfe of
thefe paffages of Scripture.
To clear this I fhall make a few Remarks upon their Expofi
tion of each of thefe paffages.
As to the Expofition they give of 1 John 1, 2, 3, 10. (men
tion'd p. 51.) I might take notice, how ftrange a Conftruction
they give of thofe words, was with God, when they expound
'em of Chrift's being taken up into Heaven to be inftruBed in his
Embaffage and Miniftry. For they are forc't for the perverting
'em to invent a matter of fact, which there is no footftep of
in the whole Hiftory of our Saviour's Life • tho had it been
true, It was of the greateft importance, and a particular rela
tion of it highly needful to confirm our belief of his divine
Miffion. I might alfo obferve, That that Author fuppofes the
Name or AppeUation of God here given to Chrift to be the Name
above every Name (mention'd by the Ap. 2 Phil, 9, 10.) and yet
makes

( ff )
makes that Name to he common to him with Mofes, and Solomon,
with Angels and Magiftrates, which looks very like a contradi
ction. And he molt, untruly infinuates that Mofes is call'd a
God, as he was Mediator ofthe Old Teftament. Whereas he is
only call'd a God to Pharaoh, 7 Exod. 1. But againft his Expo
fition, That all things being made by Chrift, means only, AU things
relating to the New Creation were made or effeBed by him. And
that the World's being made by him, imports only, It's being mor
dell'd and reduc't to a better ft ate, &c. I have thefe three things to
offer. 1. 'Tis falfe in matter of fact, That all things relating to the
New-Creation were done by him.
All the PrediBions of the Old Teftament, The whole of John
the Baptift's Miniftry, All the Labours of the Apoftles in propa
gating the Gofpel, Nay our Lord's own miraculous Concep
tion, Refurrection, &c, relate to the New-Creation, And yet can
in no tolerable fenfe be faid to be done or effeBed by the Man
Chrift Jefus.
2. That World was made by him in which he was. He was in
the World, and the World was was made by him. But he was in
this material World, and therefore the Creation of that is afcrib'd
to him.
3. That the Evangelift fpeaks not of his making the fpirituaj
World, appears by the following words, The World was made by
him, and the World knew him not. Even that World that was
made by him knew him not. Which cannot be true of the
Spiritual World, i. e. of that part of Mankind, whom our Saviour
has made New Creatures, and has reform 'd. For thofe knew and
readily own'd him. To avoid this, they are forc't to fuppofe
that the Evangelift in the compafs of one verfe, ufes the World
in three different fenfes, and two of 'em directly oppofite to
one another. For when the Evangelift faith Cbrift was in the
World, they underftand it of this material World. When he adds,
the World was made 'by him, They underftand it of that part of
man-

mankind that enilrac't the Gofpel, and were reform d by it: When
he adds, and the World hen) him not, They underftand it of that
part of mankind that continued Infidel and unreform'd. But who
caii ever think that an Infpired Writer wou'd ufe fuch ftrange
ambiguity as this in a plain and fimple Narrative ? Efpecially
when fuch ambiguous Expreffions were in fo great danger of
being mifunderftdod, and have actually led the whole Chriftian
Church to believe that the Evangelift afferted Chrift to be the
Maker of the World, which our Adverfarys take to be a per
nicious Error ? Can they reverence him as an Infpired Writer,
who thus incautioufly plays with an ambiguous word to the
extreme peril of his Reader ?
For their Expofition of i Col. 16, &e. Tneed only run briefly
over it to expofe the abfurdity Of it.
The Apoftle faith, By Chrift were all things created that are in
Heaven and that are in Earth. Cou'd he have us'd any Expref
fions more full and comprehenfive than thefe ? Or any more
frequently us'd to exprefs aU the Creatures contain' d in the World i
Nay things Invifible as WeU as Vifibie were created by him. Even
thrones and Dominions, Principalities and Powers.
All things vifibie were created by him, i. e. Say they, "¦ The de-
11 generate ftate of mankind was reform d, Paganifm and Judaifm
" abolifh'i, and the Gofpel Oeconomy introduc't. But where can
they find aU things vifibie,- and all things on Earth, us'd in Scrip
ture, for that part of mankind which was reform'd by the
Preaching of the Gofpel. We read Indeed ofthe things that are
feen, and which were not made of things that do appear, xi Heb. 3 :
But thofe are meant of this Vifibie Greation. And 'we read of
all things that are on Earth frequently mention'd as part of the
firft Creation. But thefe phrafes are never us'd to reprefent
thofe that renounc't Judaifm and Paganifm, and embrac'd
Chriftianity -, And yet thefe are the only, All things vifibie, and
all things on Earth, that our Adverfarys will allow Chrift to have
created. For they cannot fuppofe that the Apoftle underftands fo

( f7 )
fo much as Mankind in general, fince it was but a very final!
part of it that embrac't the Gofpel. So that he fhou'd in all
reafon have only faid, fome things vifibie, and fome things on Earth
were created by him. Befides the Apoftle treats of this New-Crea
tion as a diftinct thing afterwards at v. 20^2 1, &c But did he
thus alfo create all things Imifible , Thrones, and Dominions, &ci
Did he veform the H. Angels from a ftate of degeneracy that never
fell into it? Or reftoret them to the Image & favour of God who
never fell from it? No. Here his Creating dos not import any fuch
New-Creation at all 5 For there was no need of it. What dos
it import then ? Why they tell us, that the H. Angels were mo-
deU'd and difpos'd by him, i. e. They were fubjected to his Autho
rity. But (befides the manifeft harfhhefs of this Paraphrafe)
how comes the Apoftle to fay, That the H. Angels were thus mo-
deU'd by Chrift ? Did he thus fubjeB 'em to himfelf? No, this
was none of his AB at all, but only the AB of the Father, and
it was by him alone that they were thus modeU'd. For 'tis he
that put }em under his feet, 1 Cor. 15. 28. Befides, Cou'd the
Apoftle find no fitter way to exprefs the H. Angels heing fnb-
)eBed by the Father to Chrift, but by faying, they were created by
Chrift himfelf? (For that is the moft plain and ufual fenfe of
the word). This Inferior World was at firft fuhjeBed by God
to tbe Dominion of Man. But what fhou'd we have thought of
Mofes, if in his Hiftory of the Creation he had told us, That all
things both in Earth and Sea were created by man ? Cou'd we ever
imagine that he meant no more, then that God when he made
'em, put 'em under his Authority. But what fhall we fay of Evil
Angels ? (For they are alfo Call'd Principalis and Powers) Why,
They are faid to be created by Chrift, becaufe he rules over 'em
with a defign to deftroy their ufurped Dominion and Power. So
that tlie fame Word, apply'd to mankind implys Reforming 'Jm,
To good Angels Commanding 'em, to fallen Angels it fignifys
dejbroying their ufurped Power. But upon the whole, his Creating
all things comes at laft (as the Bifttopof Wmefter had : well ob-
1 6 Q ferv'd)

( f8 )
> fetv'd) to his Creating nothing at. all. . To fuch ftrange incoh-
fiftencys are our Adverfarys reduc't by their bold, attempts to
wreft fuch paffages as thefe from their clear obvious mean
ing* f. . • '.- .:¦:
- For that paffage, IHek 2. By whom be aljoimade.the Worlds.,
' That it is not meant oi the Gofpel- Ages or Times, wilt appear
if we confider, That no - place in : all the Scripture can be pro
duct in which iiSvu is to be underftood of the Gofpektimes ox
Ages, whereas 'tis evidently us'd by the Infpired. Writer oi this
'Epiftle, ior the World ox Univerfe: xi Heb. 3. By;Faithwe-under-
ji and that the Worlds were made by the. Word' of God. Even by
that Word or Son of God, by whomr he is :faid in .this, place, to
make 'em. ' ', j, :• .
Again, If the Infpired Writer had meant the Gofpel-times, he
fhou'd not have faid, that, God has made' em by his Son, but that
he is now about to make 'em. For they were' far from being then
made/ And for thofe that underftand. by the Worlds, the World
ox Ages to come, i.e. the Heavenly. Regims and the Happinefs
thereof-; They are reduc't to the neceffity of giving us a yet
harfher Expofition of the words, when they tell us, That tho'
the World in that fenfe be not properly made bf Chrift ( For thofe
heavenly Regions they fuppofe to be made long before he
had a Being ) yet he is faid to make 'em, becaufe he made 'em
ours, by giving us thepromifes of that future Happinefs. And
what plain Text may not any Man pervert at that wild and
loofe rate of Interpreting ?
But I muft add,
IV. There is one of thefe Texts which undeniably refers
to the Old Creation, and cannot be underftood of the Refor
mation of Mankind by the Gofpel.
To clear this, We muft obferve That the Infpired Writer to
the Hebrews faith at v. 8, 9. To the.Son he faith, thy throne, 0
God, is for ever and ever, &c. And immediately fubjoins at v,
10. And, Thou Lord in the tygimung baft laid the Foundation of
this

( fp )
thfs Earth, and the Heavens are the Work^.of thy hands •; they fhaU
¦ perifhKbut thou remaine ft - . And thejl fhall all wax old as doth aGarr
ment, And as a Vefture fhalt thou fold them up, and they fhaU be
changed -, But thou art the fame, and thy years fhall not fail.
r Here indeed Our Adversaries 'skill in Critics fails 'em, and all
the Subtlety they are Rafters of will not enable 'em to pervert
this pailage as 'they do the' reft to fpeak only of the New Creation.
For they plainly fee, The Heavens and Earth here fpoken of,
fhaUrpenfh. Whereas the New-Creation fhall be perfeBed not de-
ftroy'd,. fljall laft for ever not per ifh or be changed. And therefore
under this ftraitthey are forc't to a very defperate fhift, even to
¦ deny, That the Infpired Writer intended to apply theje words to our B,
Saviour. But how can that be ? Does he not as truly apply this
paffage taken out of 102 Pfalm to our Saviour, as that taken out
of the 45th? Nay if thefe words referr not to our Lord
Jejus, To what purpofe are they alledg'd ? What do they fig-
nify to prove his Pre-eminence above thofe Angels that are re-*
quir'd to worfhip him-, and indeed are under the higheft Obliga
tions to do it, if he gave 'em their Being ? Nay, why fhould;
we fcruple to apply to him the Creation of the Heavens and the
Earth at v. 10. to whom the Infpired Writer had afcrib'd the
Making of the Worlds at v. 2 t All the bufinefs is, That they
cou'd more eafily pervert thofe words at v. 2. by interpreting
'em of a Metaphorical Creation then they can thofe at v. 10.
But rather then own Chriftas the Maker of this material World,
they feem not concern'd, What Indignity they put on the In
fpired Writer, by making him cite this paffage ( according to
them ) to no valuable purpofe, nay rather to a very iU and dange
rous one, that naturally leads us to what they account a perni-'
cious Error.
But becaufe this looks too grofs, fome of 'em feem willing to
grant, That the Infpired Writer did defign in citing this paffage
out of 102 Pfalm, to apply by way of accommodation that paffage
in it to our Lord Jefus, that fpeaks of the perifbing of the old Crea tion,

"(•¦ 6° )
tion. For they tell us the DeftruBion of this vifibie World be
longs to Chrift, tho the Creation of it does not. But we are
fure, to whom the Pfalmift faith, They fhall perifh, but thou re
maine ft, To him he had faid before, Thou Lord haft founded the
Earth&c. And we are fure the Infpired Writer makes no change
of the Perfon, fo that if the latter Claufe of this Quotation belong
to Chrift, fo does the former.
And for their Objection againft our applying this paffage to
Chrift, viz. That if the Author had believed Chrift to be the
Maker of Heaven and Earth, what need he take fo much pains
to prove his Superiority to Angels, For who doubts of the Greater
being Superior to his Creatures ? It will appear to have no weight
in it, if we confider, That the Apoftle had undertaken to fhew,
Not only the Dignity of Chrift, as Heir of all things, but that he
was therefore the Heir and Lord of all things, becaufe they were
made by him; And for this purpofe It was proper to cite fuch
paffages of the Old Teftament as attribute the firft Creation to him.
And this was the more needful, becaufe there were both fome
Jews and Heretiques that afcrib'd the firft Creation to Angels -, in
oppofition to whom the Infpired Writer had juft occafion to afcribe
it to our Blejfed Lord -, which he dos by citing this Paffage out
of a Pfalm, which the ancient Jews had apply'd to the Mef-
fiah (a).
Having fhewn the Vanity of this their moft fpecious Eva-
fion, I need not infift long on their
II d Xvafion, viz. That tho it fhou'd be allow'd, that thefe
Paffages fpeak properly of the firft Creation of the World, yet they
do not affert, That the World was made by Chrift, but only for him,
( i. e. with a defign to fubject it to him. For fo they render
the words /<' «W I John 3, and 10. And fo 1 Heb. 2.
But the Unreafonablenefs of this Pretence will appear, if we
confider

(a) See Tbe Judgment of tbe Jewifb Cburcb, &e. p, 38.
1. That

(<5i )
i. That this fenfe is no way agreeable to the Original. For
if the Apoftle had intended to have faid, All things were made
for him, he fhould have faid JV 'avrh.
2. This fenfe is evidently confuted by the words of
the Apoftle, i Col. 16. where thefe Two are carefully diftin
guifh't, and both apply'd to our Bleffed Saviour. That all
things were made both by him, and for him, Si <*Vre *} *V Jurir.
Nay, he is therefore faid to be the Firft born of the Creation in
the v. foregoing, and to be before all things in the v. following
(which latter Phrafe beft explains the Sence of the former) be
caufe aU things were made by him. Whereas it wou'd not prove,
That he is before aH things, becaufe they were created for him (i. e.
with a defign to fubject 'em to him) long before he had a Being.
And to avoid this, I find one of the Unitarian Writers ftrajning
his Critical Skill, by thus Paraphrafing the Words, AU things
were made for him, and to his Service, and he is above all things.
(For fo he groundlefly renders •*£ tinm). (a) But he is hard
put to it, when he is forc't to make the Infpired Apoftle guilty
of fo grofs a Tautology, as to fay. All things were made for him
and for him. For fo «'< dvTh undoubtedly fignifies. (fee xi Rom.
36.) tho' he falfely pretends that siiv& fignifies fo toe. And
I may by the way add, that we are fure from the Text juft.
now cited, xi. Rem. 36. That all things are only for or to
him, Of whom, and by (or thro') whom they are. So that if all
things be for or to Chrift, 'Tis becaufe he is that God of and by whom
they are. And if the Unitarians make the Apoftle guilty of
this Tautology here, they muft fuppofe him to be guilty of it
there too, for the Phrafes are evidently the fame in both Texs.
But there no Man will pretend that i i i™ zrA th av-tV- fignifie
the fame thing. I fhall only add
3. That the fore-cited Text, I. Hebr. 10. is no way capable
of this Evafion. All things muft be made by as well as forhim,who
founded the Earth, and the Work of whofe Hands the Heavens are.

O) See 34 CoUeaion of Trafts, Traft 1. p. V> R Hav'mj

( 6z )
Having prov'd againft the Socinian Unitarians, that the Scrip
tures afcribe the Creation of the World to Chrift, in the proper
fenfe, I now proceed
II. To prove in oppofition to the Arrian Unitarians, That the
Creation of the World is a folid Evidence of the Almighty Power of
him that made it, and ( confequently ) of his true Deity.
Thefe Adverfaries do indeed fairly allow us the plain literal
fenfe of the foremention'd paffages that afcribe the Creation of
aU things to our B. Saviour. But they deny this Inference we
draw from it ; For they tell us, Our Lord had a prx-exiftent
Nature, That in refpect of that Nature he was the firft and moft
perfect Being that ever God made, and employ'd by him as his
Inftrument in the Creation ofthe World. And this they fuppofe
he might be without afcribing Omnipotence to him. Nay they
pretend this their Opinion to be countenanc't by the Apoftle
when he calls our Lord, The Firft-born of every Creature, I Col. 15.
And by Chrift, when he ftyles himfelf the beginning of the Crea
tion of God. 3 Rev. 14.
Now to juftify the Affertion, I have laid down in oppofition
to thefe Adverfaries, I fhall offer the following Con federations.
1. The Scriptures every where appropriate the Work of
Creation to God, and exclude all other Beings whatever from
the glory of it.
The Author to the Hebrews lays down this as a granted Max-
ime, Every Houfe is built by fome Man, but he that built all things
is God. Ill Heb, 4. And accordingly throughout the whole
O. Teftament the great God does every where diftinguifh him
felf from all other pretended Deities by this, That he was the
Maimer of Heaven and Earth h He every where challenges this
as his peculiar Glory, that they and aU things contain' d in 'em are
the Work of his hands. 'Tis one God that Created 'em. 2 Mal. 10.
As for thofe Gods that have not created the Heavens and the Earth,
he declares, they fhall perifh from the Earth, and from under thefe
Heavens. But he is the true .God>. that hath made the Earth by his
Power,

(«3-)
Power, and eftablifh't the World by his Wifdom, x Jer. io, 1 1, 1 2.
Nay he pofitively excludes any other Being from any ft) are in
the glory of this illuftrious Work. Thou (faith Hezekiah J even
thou alone art the God, even thou alone, of aU the Kingdoms of the
Earth -, thou haft made Heaven and Earth, 2 Kings xix. 15. To
the fame purpofe Nehemiah faith, Thou, even thou art Lord alone,
thou hajl made Heaven, The Heaven of Heavens, with aU their Hofts,
( thofe Thrones and Dominions, Principality s and Powers faid to be
created by Chrift, 1 Gol. 16.) tke Earth and all things that are
therein, the Seas and all that is therein, and thou preferveft 'em aU.
(Compare this with 1 Col. 17. by him all things confift, and 1 Heb.'
3. he upholds all things by the word cf his power). And the Hoft of
Heaven worfhip thee. (Compare this with 1 Heb. 6. Let all
the Angels of God worfhip him.) He alone (faith Job, fpeaking
of God) fpreads out the Heavens, ix Job. 8. Nay the B. God
himfelf faith, / have made the Earth, and created Man upon it. I3
even my hands, (i. e. my Power) have ftr etched out the Heavens,
and all their Hoft have I commanded, xiv If. 12. And fure if any
Expreffions can be decifive in, this matter, God's own words
muft be allow'd to be fo, when he fo pofitively declares by
the Prophet, / am the Lord that maketh all things, that ftretcbeth
forth the Heavens alone, and fpreadeth abroad the Earth by. my felf,
xliv If. 24. How unaccountable and unwarrantable are thefe
Expreffions if the great God us'd another, even a Created Be
ing as his Mini ft er and Inftrument in the great Work oi Creation.
For none is faid to do that alone and by himfelf 'which he ufes the
affiftance and miniftry oi another in the performance of. Nay how
inexcufable is the Infpired Writer to the Hebrews, that afcribes
this Work of Creation to Chrift in the fame Expreffions which
the Pfalmift had us'd concerning the great Jehovah, thou haft-
founded the Earth, and the Heavens are the Wcrk of thy hands I
1 Heb. 10.
But if we allow our Lord Jefus to be the fame God with
the Father, 'Tis no way inconfiftent with Gcd's making all
things

( «4 )
things by himfelf, that the Father made 'em by his Son, his E-
ternal Effential Word. For even the fame Infpired Writers declare
that God made 'em hy his Word, and by the Breath of his Mouth,
'33 Pfal. 6. The Effential Power of the Father and the Son are
the fame. But that leads me to add
2. The Apoftle Paul makes the Creation of the World a de-
monftrative proof of his Eternal Power and Godhead that
made it.
For the Invifible things of him (faith he) from the Creation of
the World are clearly feen, being underftood by the things that are
made, even his Eternal Power and Godhead, 1 Rom. 20. But
now the Force of this Argument is loft, if a Being might
make all thofe things that had no fuch Eternal Power and God
head at all, but was it felf a created and temporary Being, and
the voluntary Production of a Superiour Being.
3. The very Notion of an Inftrument in the Work of Crea
tion feems abfurd and inconfiftent.
For God's Creation of the World is all along exprefs't in Scrip
ture by his Commanding things into Being. Thus in the fore-
cited place, I even my hands have ftretched out the Heavens, and all
their Hofts have 1 commanded, xiv. If. 12. So xxxiii Pf. 9.
He J pake and it was done, He commanded and it flood faft. So the
fame Pfalmift fpeaking of the Heaven of Heavens, faith, He
commanded and they were created, cxlviii Pf. 5. Nay, in the
Account given by Mofes of the Creation, 'tis evident, 'that the
Energy of no created Being cou'd intervene between God's
Will or Command, and the EffeB to be produc'd. He faid, Let
there be Light, and there was Light, 1 Gen. 3. And what In
fluence cou'd any Inftrument have in fuch a Production ?
There is in Creation no pra-exiftent Matter, and therefore
nothing for an Inftrument to fix upon.
Befides, when they tell us, That God made this pm-exiftent
Nature of Chrift his Inftrument in the Creation of the World they
either mean, That he communicated thereto* a finite or an infi nite

( <Jf )
nite Power in order to his concurring in this Work of Creation.
If they fay an Infinite Power, they blafphemoufly Deify a Crea
ture by afcribing to it the Incommunicable Perfection of the
divine Nature. If only a finite Power, fuch a finite Power can
fignify nothing at all to the work of Creation, which plainly
requires no lefs than a boundlefs or infinite Power to effect it.
For 'tis the higheft act of Power (the ultimum quod fie of Omni
potence) to give Being to that which was nothing before. And
nothing can be impoffible to the Being that can do this. 'Tis
therefore far beyond the reach of a finite Power.
4. The Creation of all things is afcrib'd to our Lord Jefus in
expreffions that exclude him from the Rank of Creatures.
He who was God, and by whom all things were made, and without
whom not any thing was made that was made, was himfelf unmade,
and therefore Eternal. He can be no Creature, by whom aU
things were created, and who was before all Creatures. He that
was before the Mountains were brought forth, and before the Earth
or the World was form'd, is (in the Pfalmift's account) from ever-
la fling to everlafting God, xc Pfal. 2.
And for what may be objected from the Apoftle's calling our
Saviour the firft- born of all Creatures, (or rather, of the whole
Creation) It will appear to be of ho force to prove that Chrift
himfelf was a Creature, if we confider, That 'tis fufficient to
juftify his being call'd the firft-born of the whole Creation, becaufe
he tranfeends all Creatures both in Duration and in Dignity.
He is both both before 'em in Time, and is the Lord and Heir
of 'em. But it cannot here import his being of the fame Na
ture with 'em, becaufe that wou'd make the Apoftle Paul both
contradict himfelf, in the Reafon he adds, viz. That all things
were created by him. And to contradict St. John, who faith,
Without him, Nothing was made that was made, 1 John 5. And
the Apoftle himfelf explains his own fenfe, when at v. 17. he
adds, That he was before all things; And 'tis obfervable that the
Phrafe is alter'd, when the Apoftle by firft-born means one of
S the

the fame Nature. See at v. 18. And at 8 Rom. 29. As will
appear to fuch as can confult the Original.
And for Chrift's being call'd The beginning of the Creation of
God. The word Wx" when it dos not refer to Time, dos ufu-
ally fignify either the Efficient Caufe, ox the Head and Chief. And
neither of thofe fenfes implys our Lord to be himfelf a Crea
ture, but rather implys the contrary.
Having thus prov'd both that the Scriptures afcribe the
Creation of the World to our Blejfed Saviour, and that his Creating
it is a demonftrative Argument of his Almighty Power, I fhall
only briefly fubjoyn , That the Scriptures alcribe to our Bleffed
Lord other Works that are the Effects of an Almighty Power, and
are in Scripture appropriated to the Blejfed God.
Thus what the Pfalmift afcribes to the great Jehovah at civ
Pfal. v. 30. The Infpired Writer to the Hebrews afcribes to the
Son of God, That he upholds all things by the word of his power.
'Tis, God that quickens the Dead, 'Tis he alone that can kill and
make alive, iv Rom. 17. 2 Kings v. 7. And yet our Lord Jefus
attributes to himfelf the power of quickening whom he wiU. He
can by his Commanding voice, caufe the' Dead to hear and rife
out of their Graves,, v John 21, 25, 28. And his thus Railing
the Dead, and changing our vile Body to fafhion it like to his glo
rious Body, is by the Apoftle Paul faid to be effected, according to
the working of his mighty Power, whereby he is able to fubdue all
things to himfelf, iii Phil. 2 1. Expreffions that import his Power
to be abfolute and irrefiftible.
Having thus fhewn, That the Scriptures afcribe fuch abfo
lute Omnipotence to our B. Lord, I come
II. To Examine what the Author has alledg'd to perfuade
us, That our B. Saviour himfelf difclaims this PerfeBion.
" 'Tis moft evident, faith he, That our Lord Jefus, (whatever
" Power he had ) confejfes again and again, That he had not Infb
" nite Power of himfelf , V John 30. Of my felf I can do no--
lf thing. He had been fpeakjng of great Miracles, viz. Raifing « the

(*7)
" the Dead, and Executing aU Judgment . &«* <*// di/o«g /^M c^<?,
" Men fhou'd fyoiv Insufficiency, for thefe things was of God the
" Father. In the beginning of the Difcourfe v. 19. The Son can
" do nothing but what he fees the Father do. So in the mid-
" die v. 26, 27. The Father has given the Son to have Life in
" himfelf. And as if he cou'd never too much inculcate this great
" Truth, he adds towards the Conclufion, I can do nothing of my
" felf, or from nothing that is my felf do 1 draw this Power and Au-
Ci thority. Sure this is not the Voice of God, but of a Man ! For
" the moft High can receive from none -, He cannot be made more
" mighty or wife, &c. becaufe to abfolute perfeBion can be no Addi-
" tion. And fince Power in God is an Effential perfeBion, It follows
" that if it be deriv'd, Then fo is the EJfence and Being it felf,
" Which is Blafphemy againft the moft High. For 'tis to Ungod
" him, to number him among poor dependent derivative Beings.
" Whilft the Supreme God indeed is only he who is the firft Caufe, and.
" abfolute Original of all. --
Anfw. It is no good** -Argument of the Author's impartiality
in his Enquiries, that he only picks out a few Expreffions rhat
feem to favour the Opinion he has embrac't, without taking
the leaft notice of the Evidence fuggefted in the Context on
the other fide. And that he does fo in this place, will appear
upon a fuller view of the whole Paffage.
We read at v. 16. That the Jews fought to kill our Lord Jefusy
becaufe he had wrought a miraculous Cure on the Sabbath-day.
Our Lord anfwers 'em, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
q. d. Tho my Father is faid to reft on the Seventh day from:
the Works of Creation, yet he does ftill work in the continued
Adminiftrations of his Providence on the Sabbath-day, And /(who
am his Son, and therefore One with him ) do alfo work on*
that day, and do nothing herein contrary to his Will. Upon
this we read, that the Jews fought the more to kill him, becaufe he
not only had broken, the Sabbath, hut faid alfo that God was his Father,
making himfelf equal to God. Or, as the words may be more
— " J truly

(68)
truly rendred, Becaufe he call'd God his own Father, making him
felf Equal to God, i. e. call'd him his Father in fo peculiar a
fenfe as argued his Equality to him in Power and Dominion,
Now according to our Author the Jews charge our B. Lord with
the higheft Blafphemy that he can be guilty of ; and very juftly
according to his Sentiments, if they did notmiftake his Mean
ing. It muft therefore be duly confider'd, Whether our Lord
difowns this fenfe they put on his words, and faith any thing
to undeceive 'em and convince 'em, that he meant no fuch
thing. And if it appear that what he faith rather juftifies the
fenfe they put on his words then difowns it, It will thence
follow, That he owns the Charge, That he did fo caU God his
Father as to make himfelf equal to him.
Our Lord begins his reply at v. 19. Verily, verily I fay unto
you, The Son can do nothing of himfelf, except he fee the Father do
ing it. For whatfoever things he ( i. e. the Father ) does, thofe things
the Son does likewife. Now the Meaning is not as our Author
wou'd infinuate, that the Son can do nothing by any power ef his
own. But, that be can do nothing but what he fees the Father do, i.e.
nothing but what is conformable to his Example and his Will
and Order, or as in the next v. Nothing but what the Father,
who loves himfhews him, i.e. directs and orders to be done in order
to his own glory. But that his Power is the fame with his Fa
ther's he plainly intimates, When he faith in the very following
words, that whatever things the Father dos, the fame things does the
Son likewife ( For 'tis in the Original ™vto. ) fo that we may
more juftly cry out then our Author, Sure this is the Voice of a
God, and not of a Man ! For what Creature can or dare to pre
tend that whatever the Father Almighty dos, he can do the ve
ry fame ? And how plainly dos he that faith this, equalize him
felf to the Father, as poffeft of the fame Effential Power with him ?
And fo he dos again at v. 21. Bar as the Father raifeth up the
Dead, and quickpetb them, fo dos the Son quicken whom he will.
And thus to raife and quicken the Dead at his own pleafurel is

(<%>)
»s evidently the peculiar Effect of an Almighty Power, IV Rom.
17. 2 Kings, v. 7. And thb' it is faid at v. 24. that as the Fa
ther hath Life in himfelf, fo he has given the Son to have Life in
himfelf 5 This does by no means imply, the Son to be fuch a
Dependent Derivative Being as Creatures axe, but the contrary.
For to have Life in himfelf and a capacity of imparting it to whom
he wiU, is the peculiar perfection of the Self-living God. And
the Father's giving this to the Son imports, not a voluntary Gift,
but his Communicating this and all other Divine Perfections
to him by a neceffary Eternal Act ( whieji Divines call Eternal
Generation ). 'Tis true indeed An Authority or Right to judg
the World mention'd at v. 22 and 27.1s a voluntary Gift, which
our Author unadvifedly confounds with Chrift's Effential Power.
And that Authority belongs to Chrift as Mediator, and is to be
exercis'd by him in our Nature as he is the Son of Man. As
our Lord plainly tells us at v. 27. He hath given him Authority
to execute Judgment alfo becaufe he is the Son of Man. Whereby
he both intimates That he fhould judg the World in that Hu
man Nature that he affum'd, and fhou'd have this honour con
ferr'd on him for affuming it, viz. That the World fhou'd not
be Judged by the Father, but aU Judgment committed to the Son. But
for the Effential Power whereby the Dead fhou'd be rais'd in or
der to their being judg'd, that belongs not to him as Man,
but as the Eternal Son of God. The Dead ( faith he at v. 25 )
fhaU hear the Voice of the Son of God, and they that hear ft) aU live.
And here 'tis manifeft that our Saviour plainly diftinguifhes
thefe two Titles or Characters that belong to him, viz. The
Son of God, and the Son of Man. And makes the former the
ground of his Divine Power or Might, The latter oi his Delega*
ted Authority. And for what our Saviour adds in the Conclusi
on, / can of my own felf do nothing, as I hear, I judg, and my judg
ment isjuft, becaufe Ifeek not my own WiU, but the WiU of the Fa
ther that fent me -, Thefe words referr not at all to his Effential
Power of Working, but to his accurate obfervance ofthe Fatherh
T WiU

( 1° >
Will in all his judicial proceedings, to which his Human Will
was entirely conformable, and his Divine the fame with it.
But becaufe I do allow the Effential Power of the Son of God
to be communicated to him by the Father, I muft take fome no
tice of his Reafoning againft it. " Since Power in God is an
" Effential PerfeUion, It follows that if it be deriv'd, Then fo is the
" EJfence or Being it felf. Anfw. If by, being deriv'd he means
communicated by the Father to the Son, not by a voluntary act,
but by the Son's neceffary Eternal Emanation from him, We
grant that the Son thus derives his Effence or Divine Nature
from the Father. What then i " Why this ( faith the Author)
<• is Blafphemy againft the moft High, For 'tis to Ungod him, Te
" number him among poor dependent derivative Beings, Whilft he
" who is the Supreme God is only he who is the firft Caufe and abfo-
f • lute Original of aU.
Anfw. If by poor dependent derivative Beings, he mean fuch as
are the voluntary productions of a Being diftinct from them
felves, that depend on his meer pleafure for their Exiftence,
and the continuation thereof, I deny that the Son of God is
any fuch poor dependent derivative Being, Or that he is num
ber' d among fuch by our Conceffion, That the Father communi
cates the Divine Nature, and the perfections thereof, to him
by a Neceffary Eternal and Permanent Act. Nor is he hereby
conftituted another Being from the Father at all, but only ano
ther Perfon in the Godhead. Nor does this hinder him from
being the Supreme God, i. e. the firft Caufe and abfolute Original
of all other Beings ( as I have fhewn the Scriptures affert him
to be ) tho he be not firft in the Godhead in refpect of the order
of Subfiftence and Operation between thofe Sacred Three that are
the One Supreme God.
But the Author adds, Our Lord confiders himfelf here in op
pofition to his Father, who (he faith) gave him aU Power. Now
if he had fuch an Eternal Divine Word, united more nearly to
him then the Father, furely he wou'd have own'd his Power to
be from that Word or Divine Sen. juf.

(7i )
Anfw. There is no fuch phrafe in all the Context as the Fa*
ther's Giving aU power to our B. Lord, but only Giving him Au
thority to execute Judgment, becaufe he is the Son of Man, at v. 27.
But to pafs by that. By Power the Author either means Might
and. Strength, or Authority. If the former -, 'Tis evident, That
this Almighty Power belongs to Chrift as the Eternal Word or
Son of God. And he is poffeft of it by a neceffary Eternal E-
manation from the Father, who communicates it by a necejfary
not an arbitrary free AB. And this Power the Man Chrift Jefus
was never poffeft of at all, no more then of any other Incom
municable Perfections of the Divine Nature. If by Power he
means, Authority to judge the World ( which is all the Text here
fpeaks of) We own this to be the Father's voluntary Gift, and
that the Human Nature is employ'd jn the Exercife of it. And
this Authority fhou'd in all reafon be derived from the Father,
who fuftains the Character of Supreme Lawgiver, not from the
Eternal Word, who affum'd the Office of Mediator.
He concludes, " How comes he to afcribe nothing to that, fince
" 'tis fuppos'd to be equal in Power to the Father himfelf, and more
11 nearly ally'd to J. Chrift as the Operating Principle in him. Sa
" 14 John 10. My Father in me does the Works, by which 'tis
" evident, There was no Divine Agent in and with him but the Fa--
" ther. He only has all Power of himfelf, and needs no Afji-
" fiance. Anjw. I have already fhewn him, That our Lord Jefus as
the Eternal Word ox Son of God dos claim a divine Almighty
Power, in telling us, that whatever things the Father dos, he the
Son dos' the fame likewife. But againft this he ftarts a new Ar
gument from the 14 John 10. Where our Lord faith to Phi
lip, Believe ft thou not that lam in the Father, and the Father in me.
the words that I fpeak unto you, I fpeak not of my felf, but the Fa
ther that dwels in me, he dos the Works- And in the next v. Be
Heve me that I am in the Father and the Father in me, Or elfe be-~
lieve me for the Works fake. But what wou'd our Author infer
hence ?

(70
hence ? He cannot reafonably conclude more from hence, Then
that the Works of our Lord Jefus proceeded from that Almighty
Power that was both in the Father and in Him. So that by
thofe very Works the Father himfelf attefted the Miffion of the
Son, and his Unity in Nature and EJfence with himfelf. Thus
alfo the miraculous Works of Chrift axe frequently afcrib'd
to the Holy Spirit, and the imputing them to a diabolical Power
is condemn'd as the unpardonable Blafphemy againft the Ho
ly Ghoft. But becaufe both the Father and the Holy Spirit did
dwell and operate in the human Nature of Chrift 5 It will not
follow, That the Eternal Word did not do fo too, and that in a
peculiar and more eminent manner. Chrift indeed as a Prophet
rais'd from among his Brethren^ and fent on the Father's Embaffy,
was to manage that Office under the Infpiration and Conduct
of that Holy Spirit that was given to him without meafure, and to
confirm his Miffion by thofe miraculous Operations of the Holy
Spirit, that were the Father's Credentials. And for this reafon
thefe works are imputed fo often to the Holy Spirit, and to the
Father, and not becaufe the Eternal Word was deftitute of the
power of doing "em. (a)
And now let the Author confider, whether thefe Paffages in
which he pretends our Saviour difclaims Almighty Power, and which
are capable of fo eafy a folution which the Context it felf leads
us to,are to be put in the ballance with thofe that fo manifeftly
afcribe the Creation to him, that undoubted Demonftration ofthe
Eternal Power and Godhead of the Creator ? And whether he
be not in danger of blafpheming our Saviour by thus Ungod-
ding him, and numbring him with poor derivative dependent Beings ?
For among fuch he is pleas'd to rank him.
Having difpatch't this Head of Abfolute Power, I come next
to that

(a) See Dr. JPbhbfs Preface to his Commentary on fobrt.
II. Of

( 73 )
II. Of Supreme Abfolute Goodnefs. This I fully agree with
the Author to be a prime charaBer of the Supreme Being
And therefore I fhall, Firft Briefly fhew, That fuch Abfolute
Goodnefs belongs to our Bleffed Saviour, and Secondly Confider
v a x l16?.8?-^ P?r,:,ade us ^at our Saviour difclaims it.
Firft I fhall briefly fhew, That our Bleffed Saviour is poffeft of
fuch Supreme Abfolute Goodnefs.
Now this Supreme Goodnefs difcovers it felf to us thefe two
ways, Either
i. By Communicating Being to aU Creatures. Or
2. By Redeeming and Recovering 'em when Self-deftroy'd and
loft. i. I have already fhewn, That our Lord has given Being toaU'
Creatures. ^ And I need not enlarge to fhew, That is an Effect of
Goodnefs as well as Power truly divine and infinite. And
2. For the Redemption and Recovery of guilty and felf-defiroyed
Sinners, I hope I need not prove to any that pretends to the
Name of a Chriftian, That this Work is afcrib'd to our Blef
fed Saviour.
And one wou'd think there is as little need to prove, That
this is an Effect of fupreme Goodnefs and infinite Love. I am
fure 'tis a love that the Apoftle Paul invites us to comprehend
the breadth and length, and height and depth of, and tells us, that
itfurpaffes aU our Knowledg, IlIEph. 18, 19. Nay 'tis a Goodnefs
and Love fo truly divine, as to warrant our afcribing in our
moft folemn Devotions, the fame Eternal Glory and Dominion, to
him who thus loved us and wafh't us from our fins in his own Blood,
&c. which we elfewhere afcribe unto the Father, I Rev. 5.
compar'd with 1 Pet. v. ri. (As I fhall more fully fhew anon).
And indeed his Love will appear thus boundlefs and incom-
prehenfible, and truly worthy of Eternal Adoration, if we con
fider our Blejfed Saviour as the Eternal Word, who not only af
fum'd our Nature into a vital indiffoluble Union, but in that
U very

(74)
very nature ftoopt fo low as to dye in the ftead of fuch Rebels
and Enemies as we were, and to fhed his precious Blood for
the Expiation of our guilt. And fo we are taught to con
fider him, as One who was in tbe Form of God, and had ap
pear'd with all the marks of divine Majefty and Glory, but for
our fakes devefted himfelf ot 'all that external Glory, took on
him the Form of a Servant, and was made in the likenefs of
Men, Nay being found in the fafhion of Man, • he humbled himfelf
yet lower, even to fo aftonifhing a degree, as to become obedient
to Death, even the Death ofthe Crofs, 2 Phil. 7, 8. For when we
contemplate the infinite diftance and difproportion there is be
tween the divine Nature and Ours, we cannot but fee, Here
is an Inftance of Love, not only beyond all example or paral
lel of human Love, but fufficient to juftify the higheft Com
mendations the Scriptures give of it, fufficient to raife and en
tertain the admiring thoughts and views of Angels and Men.
For What love can be greater than this, that the Prince of Life
^nd Lord of Glory, fhou'd in our Nature and Dead fubmit to
the painful, and fbameful, and accurfed Death of the Crofs.
But if with our Adverfaries, We fhou'd conceive of our B.
Saviour only as a Creature, As a Man, or ( in our Author's
phrafe) a poor derivative dependent Being, who laid down his
Life for us, and that with the profpect of the higheft Dignity
and Glory that a Creature is capable of, as the Reward of his
Sufferings, Then indeed his Goodnefs and Love is but finite,
and may be eafily comprehended, and is far from furpaffing
our knowledge, and wou'd be as far from warranting either
fuch high Elogiums of it as the Infpired Writers give us, or
the Doxologies they direct us to offer on the account of it.
And no wonder that thofe that think there is no more in the
Dying Love of our Saviour fhou'd deny bim to be poffefs't of
Supreme Goodnefs But whofe Opinion and the Confluences
thereof are moft conformable to the Language of Scripture
Ours or Theirs, I freely leave to every ferious Chriftian to
judg. And proceed, Secondly,

( 75 )
Secondly To Examine, What the Author has alledg'd to per-
fuade us, That our Bleffed Saviour difclaims any fuch fupreme
abfolute Goodnefs.
And here his whole Proof relys en one fingle paffage.
" Our Lord (faith he) exprefly difclaims this charaBer. 19 Mat.
" 17. Why caileft thou me Good i There is none good but
" One, that is God. Where 'tis moft evident that he dijlinguifbes
li himfelf from God, as not the fame with him, and denys of him-
" felf what he affirms of God. And for that divine PerfeBion af
" fupreme infinite Goodnefs, he challenges the Man for prefuming to
" fay what kerned to attribute it to him, and leads him off to ana-
'• ther, who, and who only was more eminently fo.
Anfw. I deny that our Saviour dos either exprefly difclaim the
charaBer of Good, or diftinguifh himfelf from God. as not the fame
with him. Which is all the foundation of the Author's Rea-
foning from this Text. We do not ( as the Author ground-
lefly imputes tous) fuppofe our Saviour's Meaning to be, ¦ I know
Man, thou do ft not take me for God, as I am, Why then do ft thou give
me the Title that belongs to him only ? For we do not fuppofe that
our Saviour defign'd to difcover his Deity to him at this time.
Nor did the young man's Queftion give him any occafion for
it. Nor do we think that the young Man took our Saviour
to be God, when he call'd him Good, or that he paid him any
more than a civil refpeB -, But 'tis probable (from his giving
him. the Title of good Mafter) that the young Man did take
him for a Rabbi oxDoBor of eminent Piety and Sanctity. And
we know the Jewifh Rabbi's affected fuch pompous and fwel-
ling Titles. See xxviii Matth. from 7 to the 1 1 v. According
ly the Young Man addreffes him in the common ftrain they us'd
to .the Jewifh Doctors. Now our Bleffed Lord to difcounte-
nance this affectation of high Titles, and fet before this young
.Man an Example of humility, in oppofition to the Vanity and
'Self-conceit he difcover'd, intimates to him that the Title he
gave him was in it's higheft fenfe proper only for God, and not for

( 7* )
for fuch a one as he took him to be, viz: a Rabbi or teacher
of the Law. And the Man dos not fay (as our Author pre
tends ) what Jefus Chrift thought too much to be faid of him
felf, but only what was too much to be faid according to thofe
apprehenjhns he knew that he had of him. Nor was it at all
neceffary that our Bleffed Saviour fhou'd rectify his appre-
henfions at this time by difcovering his Deity to him; He that
had charg'd his own Difciples a little before, That they fhould
teU no Man, That he was Jefus the Chrift, or Meffiah, xvi Mat.20.
(tho he really was fo, and intended in due time openly to claim
that Title ) might much more think it incongruous to reveal
and affert his Deity to this young Profelyte. For that were to
have gravell'd a raw Catechumen at firft dafh with the fublimeft
Myftery of Chriftian Godlinefs. He muft be firft taught to own
him as the Meffiah, before he was fit to be inftructed in the
dignity and higheft CharaBers that belong'd to him as fuch. So
that our Saviour's Cafe was like that of a Prince that walks in
cognito and in difguife -, He had devefted himfelf of that External
Glory that was the Form of God, to put on that of a Servant. And
fhou'd fuch a Prince in difguife be accofted by any that knew
him not, with Complements too high for a SubjeB, Might he
not fay, Why do you give me a Title more, proper to be given your
Prince ? This wou'd indeed argue that he defign'd at prefent to
conceal, but by no means to deny or difown his Royal Authority.
And the Cafes being parallel the Author very unreafonably in-
ferrs from the like Expreffions, That our Saviour here difowns
his Goodnefs. Nor was there any neceffity that, the Evangelifts
in recording this paffage fhou'd enter a Caution, That Chrift
did not intend by thefe words to deny that he was Good and
truly God. The Title of God they fo often give to him, and
that matchlefs Grace of our Lord Jefus, which elfewhere the
Infpired Writers of the New Teftament fo largely on all occa-
fions extoll, was fufficient to guard any confiderate Reader from
fo grofly mifinterpreting fuch an occafional paffage. And there fore

( 77 )
fore for the Author to cry out on this occafion, « 'lis aftonifhim
' *fe*wb# violence U offer'd to this Sacred Text byjuch as main-
"tain the Equality of J. Chrift to God his Father, when he has
faid nothing of any weight againft the common Expofition but
what is founded on his own mifreprefentation of it, fhews us
How Natural it is, when Reafon and Argument fail to bear the'
world down with meer Confidence. For his Reafonings are fcarce
any where thro his Book fo trifling & weak as on this Head on
which he makes this vehement Exclamation without the l'eaft
tolerable ground. 'Tis much more aftonifliing that a Man of
his Abilities fhou'd lay fo mighty ftrefs on fo weak an Argu
ment, For 'tis he Offers real violence to our Saviour's words to
make 'em ferve his purpofe, when he pretends, that our Sa
viour apparently denies, That he was Good in as high a fenfe as
God his Father.
I proceed to the
Hid Perfection of Abfolute Omnifcience or Unlimited Know
ledge of all things, paft, prefent and to come.
In treating on this part of the Argument, I fhall
fixft. Prove the H. Scriptures do afcribe fuch Abfolute Omnifcience
to our B. Lord.
Secondly, Examine what the Author has offer'd to the contrary.
Firft, I fhall prove, That the H. Scriptures afcribe fuch abfolute
Omnifcience to our B. Lord.
And here I fhall have occafion to confider what the Author
has offer'd to invalidate the Proofs commonly brought to evince
that this Perfection belongs to our B. Saviour.
I. We argue from thofe many paffages in the New Tefta
ment, wherein the Knowledge of aU things is afcribed to our
Lord Jefus. Such as thofe II John 23, 24, 25. Many believed
on his Name when they faw the Miracles which he did, But Jefus
did not commit himfelf to 'em, becaufe he kpew all Men -, And need
ed not that any fhou'd teftify of Man, For hekpewwhatwas in Man.
So xvi John ,30. Now we are fure that thou kpowe ft aU things and
X needeft

( 78 )
needeft not that any Man fhould ask. thee, By this we believe that
thou cameft forth from God. And again xxi John 17. Lord, thou
knoweft aU things, Thou knoweft that I love thee. Now we con
clude, That an Univerfal Unlimited Knowledg belongs to him
according to the plain fenfe of thefe Expreffions.
To this the Author replys, That " thefe words are intended
" only to exprefs a great and comprehenfive Knowledg. As will
appear (he faith)
" 1. By Chrift's own words, who knew not the day of Judg-
" ment. Anfw. This I fhall afterwards confider as his main Obje
ction. 2. " Jn that it was common to afcribe aU Kjiowledg to men of
'• extraordinary Wifdom. (As he endeavors to fhew by feveral
Inftances). Now this I deny, nor do any of the Inftances he alledges
prove it.
The Woman of tekoah never meant to afcribe to David any
more than an accurate Knowledg of all the affairs of his own
Kingdom when fhe tells him, My Lord knows all things on Earth,
and is as wife as an Angel, 2 Sam. xiv. 20., And fhe imputes .
this knowledg only to his Sagacity and Wifdom. Befides the
Expreffions themfelves appear at firft view hyperbolical, and have
an air of Court-flattery in *em.
For that of Chriftians being faid to know aU things, The Con
text reftrains it to thofe things which the Anointing teaches all
Chriftians, /'. e. the neceffary Doctrines of the Gofpel.
And for the words of Simon concerning our Lord, If this
Man were a Prophet, he wou'd know what manner of Woman this is,
vii Luke 39. They rather charge him (as fome think) for a de
fect of Holinefs than of Knowledg, viz. That he was not fu'f-
ficiently inquifitive to know who this Woman was that touch't
him, As the Pharifees ufually were very nice and fcrupulous
leaft they fhou'd be defiled by the touch of fuch as they call'd
Sinners.

(79)
Sinners. But if they refer to his Knowledg, and imply, That
Shorn, thought a Prophet might by Revelation ordinarily fofar
know a notorious Sinner as was requifite to his avoiding the
defilement of being touch't by fuch a one. This fignifys no
thing to prove, That they thought their Prophets knew all
things. And for the Woman of Samaria, fhe might juftly conclude .
our Lord to be a Prophet from his difcovering her fecret acts to
her; but It dos by no means thence follow, That either Jews
or Samaritans thought their Prophets kpew the fecret s of aU Men,
and much lefs that they knew all things, which the Difciples in
the places alledg'd afcribe to our Bleffed. Saviour, and to which 4
there is nothing parallel in all thefe Inftances. But . ,
3. The Author adds, " 'tis evident that the Difciples by attri-
" luting all Knowledg to Chrift, intended no more than to afcribe >
" to him fuch great Knowledg as a Created Being is capable of,
" becaufe they infer no more from it than this, Now we believe
" that thou cameft forth from God, i. e. Not that he was God,
" but One fent of God.
Anfw. The Author has no reafon to conclude from thefe
Words, Now we believe that thou cameft forth from God, that the
Difciples inferred no more than Chrift's being fent of God^ as,
other Prophets were. For they are not faid to come, forth from .
God, when they are fent on his Meffage. And that oux Lord,. ^
to whofe own Words (at v. 28.) the Difciples refer, intended .
to affirm more of himfelf, when he faith, / came forth from the
Father, then meerly his being fent as a great Prophet, we have
juft Ground to fuppofe. For elfewhere he declares his own ,
Nature to be as incomprehenfible as that of the Father. No
Man knows the Son but the Father, and no Man knows the Father
but the Son, and to whomfoever the Son will reveal him, xi Matt.
27. Again we are told, 1 John 1 8. No Man hath feen God at -,
any time, the only begotten Son which is in the Bofom of the Father, ,
he has declared him. Where the only-begotten Son of the Fathey is
diftin-,

( 8° )
diftinguifh't from aU Men, and confequently from all meer
Prophets, as one whofe peculiar Priviledge it was to he in the
Boj'om ofthe Father, acquainted with all his Councils, and there
fore capable to declare 'em. And our B. Lord as the only-he*
gotten Son of God; plainly equals his own Knowledge with
the Father's, when he tells his Difciples, that the Spirit of truth
whom he wou7dfend, fhou'd glorify him. For (faith he) hefhaU
receive of mine1, and fhaU fhew it to you. AU things that the Father
hath aremine, therefore faid I, that he fhall take ofmine,andfhaUftoew
it unto you, xvi John 13, 14, 15. And to the like purpofe our
Lord faith, vijohn 45. Not that any Man hath feen the Father,
fave he which is ofGod,(°'fr -jra-fttri ©s5, He that hath his Effence
from God) he hath feen the Father. And 'tis.obfervable that
our B. Saviour gives himfelf this Character, in oppofition to the
Jews, that faid, Is not this Jefus the Son of Jofeph, whofe Father
and Mother we know? How is it then that he faith, I came down
from Heaven ? H6 juftifies what he had faid, that he came down
from Heaven, and had a higher Defcent than that from his
Mother on Earth, as the only-begotten Son of God, who had his
Effence from him, and whofe peculiar Priviledge it was to fee
him. So- that our Author's only confiderable Objection againft
the Obvious Senfe of thefe Paffages appears to be founded on
a Miftaken Suppofition, That the Difciples inferr'd no more
from that Knowledge of aU things, which they afcribe to him,
than that he was the greate ft of Prophets.
And for what our Author fubjoins at the Conclufion of this
firft Argument for the Omnifcience of Chrift, " that tho Chrift
" fhould be aUow'd to know aU things which aUuaUy are, unlefs he
fi know aU Futurities too, It would not prove his infinite Omnifcience.
I fhall have occafion to confider it under the next Head.
I fhall only add, That in that Paffage of the Apoftle Peter's,
Lord, thou knoweft aU things, thou knoweft that I love thee, 'Tis
manifeft, that the Apoftle inferrs Chrift's Knowledge of the
hidden Difpofition of his very Soul towards him from the
boundlefs

(*i )
boundlefs extent of his Knowledg. q. d. The fecrets of mv
Heart cannot be hid from thee, to whom all things are know/
^i fu^f comprehenfive Knowledge hadnot beS
to om Bleffed Saviour, we might reafonably expect that lie
Z°«lth%Z Ch6CkM thlS ? Ceffive langua§e of thej^ he e'
nro^'d ^ SkJT d n0t ^ f°u °penly countenanc't and ap:
proy d the like language from the reft of the Difciples as he
plainly dos, xvi John 3 1. J F ' as He
But the language of the Apofiles will appear no way hyper
bolical or exceffive if we confider, That our Lord himfelf more
fully claims fuch Omnifcience. But this leads me to the
lid Argument for the Omnifcience of Chrift drawn from thofe
callages of Scripture that afcribe to him that Kjtowledg ofthe
Hearts ef Men, which is peculiar to the divine Underftand-
ing. That the Knowledg of the Hearts of Men is peculiar to an
Omnifcient Being, even to the Allknovbing God, is evident from
feveral paffages of Scripture.
It was fo in the Judgment of the wifeft of Men, Solomon,
as is evident from that paffage in his Prayer at the Dedication
of the Temple, when he requefts, that God may give every Sup
plicant according to his Ways, whofe heart (faith he) thou knoweft,
For thou, even thou only knoweft the hearts of all the children of men,
1 Kings viii. 38, 35?. So the Pfalmift makes it the peculiar
Glory of him whofe throne is in Heaven, That his Eyes behold,
and his Eye-lids try the children of Men, xi Pfal. 4. Nay the
Pfalmift elfewhere mentions it as one eminent Inftance of that
Knowledg of God, which appear'd to him fo wonderful and in-
comprehenfible, That he had fearch't and known him, That he was
not only acquainted with his ways, but even underftood his thoughts
afar off, exxxix Pf. 1, 2, 3, 6fc. And fure that one paffage of
the Prophet Jeremiah is fufficient to put this matter paft all
reafonable doubt, when he brings in the Bleffed God, affirming
this to himfelf as the incommunicable priviledge and Glory of
Y his

(«0
his infinite Mind. The Heart of Man is deceitful and defperately
wicked, Mo can know it I a. d. No Creature whatever can pre
tend to fo marvellous a Knowledg as this. It exceeds the li
mited capacity of a finite Mind. The Bleffed God therefore
affumes it to himfelf as his peculiar Perfection, / the Lord fearch
the Heart, 1 try the Reins, to give to every Man according to his
ways, and according to the fruit of their doings, xvii Jer. 9- i°.
Now that the Scriptures do afcfibe this Knowledg of Men's
Hearts (which they thus appropriate to God) to our Bleffed
Saviour is no lefs evident. And that not only from feveral of
the paffages mention'd before, and many others that might be
added, but from our Lord's Exprefs Declaration. The Churches
(faith he) fhall know that I am he, which fe arches the hearts and
the reins, and will give to every man according to their works,
WRev. 23. And the Apoftle Paul to the fame purpofe de
clares, That our Lord Jefus will come to bring the hidden works
of darknefs to light, and to make manifeft the Counfels of all. hearts,
1 Cor. iv. 5.
Now one wou'd think this Argument to be clear and de-
cifive in this Difpute h when what the great Jehovah appro
priates to himfelf in the Prophet, Our Bleffed Saviour fo openly
lays claim to in this remarkable Paffage. But the Author :has
offer'd two things to take off the force of it, which I muft
confider. To this purpofe he propofes to confider, " 1. In what fenfe
" tbe fe arching and knowing the Heart is peculiar to God, and in-
" communicable to others. 2. To fhew, That tho it be peculiar to
<¦' God in one fenfe, yet in another fenfe, It may be attributed to an-
¦" other that is not the moft High God.
As to the firft (he faith) " Tho Solomon fay, Thou Lord only
" knoweft the Hearts of all Men, yet what if I fay, That 'tis no
" wonder that Solomon fhou'd not know of any other to whom that
'' ExceUency was Communicated, fince he underftood not the Myftery
u of the Unfearchable Riches and fullnefs of Chrift, &c. Anf.

(8}

)

Anjw. If our Author think fit to fay fo, We fhall think fit to
believe, That Solomon was wifer then he, and deli ver'd his Pray
er by a diviner Infpiration then appears in his Book Efpecially
when we find not only other Infpired Writers concurring with
him, but even the B. God appropriating this Knowledge to
himfelf, and diftinguifliing himfelf thereby from all ^Creatures
whatfoever. But he adds, " That fuch Expreffions appropriating feme Per-
" feBions to God do only import, that he has no equal to him therein.
" and that they belong to him in an Eminent fenfe. As when 'tis
" faid God is only wife, xvi Rom. 27. God only hath immortality. .
" I Tim. vi, \6. And accordingly, When the Scriptures appropriate
" the Knowledge of Men's hearts to God, they mean only, That ¦
H there is none knows the Heart fo UniverfaUy, fo immediately and
" independently as he. So that he reckons we argue but weakly from .'.
" Chrift's knowing Men's Hearts, that he is God, unlejs we fhew
" that he knows 'em in the fame excellent and independent manner
" and degree as the Father. But fori Knowing Men's Hearts in "a
" lower fenfe, by Revelation, he tells us, This has been Communi-
11 cated to Prophets and Apoftles. 2 Kings vi. 12: 1 Cor. xii. 10. .
" V, Acts. And this way Chrift may know 'em much more. Sear-
" ching the Heart importing the accuracy of Knowledge , not the
" manner of attaining it.
Anfw. That fome of God's Perfections, as his Wifdom, Power, ,
Knowledge, &c. axe Communicable, I freely grant. But I muft
tell our Author, There are fome ABs flowing from thefe Perfe
ctions that are peculiar to God, and incommunicable to any"
Created Being. So is that; AB of his Power, The Makjng a things
out of nothing. And fo ( if we may believe the Scriptures )' is
that AB oi the Divine Under ft anding, The Knowing the Hearts of
Men, i. e. The Knowing 'em by Immediate Intuition. For as to
that Knowledg of 'em that is by Revelation from another, or is only
ConjeBural, It no way belongs to God at all, and none doubts.
but a Prophet or an Apoftle, or the Man Chrift. Jefus may thus
know

( 84 )
¦know the Hearts of Men. The Queftion then is, whether
the B. God have not a peculiar way oi Knowing the Hearts of
Men, viz. by immediate Intuition, that is incommunicable to
any other Being ? If he have, It muft then be Enquir'd, Whe
ther our Lord Jefus dos not challenge to himfelf that very way
of Knowing the Hearts of Men? That God has a peculiar way
of Knowing. Men's Hearts, viz: Vniverfally, Immediately and
Independently Our Author grants. And fo muft any Man that
duly confiders the Abfolute Perfection of the Divine Underftand-
ing, and the unavoidable imperfection of a finite Mind. Now
I wou'd only ask him, Whether the B. God does not intend to
affert his own peculiar way of Knowing the Hearts of Men,
When he faith, I the Lord fearch < the Heart and try the Reins ?
'Tis evident that be does fo, becaufe hereby he reprefents that
perfect Knowledge of the deceitful Heart of Man, that abfo
lutely diftinguifhes him from all Creatures whatever. The
Heart of Man is deceitful above all things, &c. Who can know it ?
1 the Lord fearch the Hearts, &c. Now if thefe Expreffions re-
prefent God's peculiar and perfect way of Knowing Men's
Hearts (as they muft do, in order to their diftinguifhing him
from all Created Beings ) Then that very perfect and peculiar
way of Knowing Men's Hearts belongs to our Lord Jefus. For
our B. Saviour afTerts his Knowledg in thofe very Expreffions,
and that in the moft emphatical manner. Our Author that af-
ferts the Knowledge of Chrift's Human Nature to be fo exten-
ffve, will not fure imagine him to be ignorant that the B. God
had by the Prophet Jeremy reprefented his own Univerfal, Im
mediate, Independent Knowledge of the Hearts of Men by thefe
Expreffions. And yet our Lord Jefus ufes the fame to exprefs
his own Knowledge of 'em. Nay he does not barely fay, /
fearch the Hearts, &c. But the Churches fhall know that I am he
that fearches the Hearts, &C. q. d. I am that Jehovah whom
the Prophet there defcribes as the Searcher of the HeaHs and
Reins. Now if our Lord intended to apply this paffage of
the

<. 8f )
the FrojAtt to himfelf in the fenfe there intended, Qur point
is gain d, and there is no Room to difpute his Omnifcience.
like did not, but only intend to apply thefe words to him
felf in a lower Sesiyie (viz. of his Undemanding 'em by Reve
lation from another, or by probable ConjeBure). Nay ma Senfe
that ccai'd not agree, to the B. Qod, we cannot excufe his words
from palpable Biafphemy, and much lefs from the greateft Im
prudence, and Neglect of his Father's Honour, fince they fo
naturally lead all that read 'em to afcribe to him, whom tfie
Author fuppofes but a finite Creature, the fame Knowledge of
mens Hearts which the Prophet had appropriated to the great
Jehovah before.
Nay> I may here, to confirm this Argument, anM, That as
the Scriptures affign two Grounds of God's perfect and imme
diate Knowledge of men's hearts, viz. Partly, His having made
'em, (*•) And Partly, his Intimate Prefence with, 'em, (b.)
So both thefe grounds of it belong to our B. Saviour . I have
already fhewn, That he made 'em -, And fie himfelf afferts his
own Ommprefeme, when he promifes, That where two or three
are gathered together in his Name, he wiU be there in the midft of
,'em, xviii Mutth. 20. See alfo xxviii Matt, laft v. xiv John
20, 23, And if it fhould be pretended that thofe Texts (peak
of Chrift's Spiritual Prefence by the Influences of his Grace,
This wou'd rather confirm than invalidate this Proof of his
Omniprefence. For as we therefore prove God is every where
in refpect of his Effence, becaufe he can at the fame time,
exert the Power that is infeparable from his Effence in preser
ving and fuftaining his Creatures, and directing or over-ruling
their Actions ; fo we may infer, That Chrift is every where in
refpect of his Effential Prefence as God, becaufe he can be eve
ry where at the fame time, by his Spiritual Influences and

(a) See XXXIII Pfalm 15. CXXXIX Pfalm 13. IV Amos 13.
(b) XXIII Jer. 24.

gracious

( SO.
gracious Operations. For that Spiritual Virtue is inseparable
from his Effence.
Having thus fhewn, That our B. Saviour claims the Know
ledg of men's hearts in the fame fenfe in which 'tis afcrib'd to
the Father, I might juftly pafs by all he has offer'd under the
2d Head. But becaufe there are feveral Miftakes in it, that
need to be rectify'd in order to the clearing this Subject, I fhall
briefly confider it. Therefore
Secondly, *' Jhere is no Abfurdity (he tells us) in Attributing
u this Kjiowledg of the heart to J. Chrift, tho' he be not the moft
" High God. And to that purpofe, he argues, That the ObjeB be-
" ing but finite, It does not exceed a finite Capacity to have fuch an
" Vniverfal Kjiowledg of the hearts and ways of Men, as is afcribed
" to J. Chrift.
Anfw. The Author fhou'd have told us, What Knowledg of
men's hearts and ways he attributes to the human Soul of Chrift;
Whether that unerring Knowledg of 'em by immediate Infpe-
Bion and Intuition which belongs to the Bleffed God, Or only a
Knowledg of 'em by Revelation, or by probable conjeBure. Ii the
former, he runs his head againft all thofe numerous Texts fore-
mention'd that appropriate that immediate Knowledg of the
hearts of Men to the Bleffed God, and plainly robs the divine
Understanding of what the Scriptures celebrate as it's incom
municable Priviledg and peculiar Glory. If he mean only the
Latter, We are willing to allow as much Knowledg of that
kind to the human Soul of Chrift as can agree to it's finite capa
city ; And tho we cannot prefume to define, How far fuch a
finite capacity can extend, Yet we fee no ground at all to ex
tend it fo far as our Author feems to do. As for Inftance,
We can by no means allow, That the human Soul of Chrift
actually knows all the Words and Works, nay all the very thoughts,
and defires, and purpofes of all the Men that ever liv'd on this
Earth in all the feveral Ages of the World. Nor dos the ob
ject of this univerfaj Knowledg being, finite, prove that it ex
ceeds

(»7)
ceeds not the capacity of a finite mind. The World it felf as
the object of God's Power, is but finite -, But yet it requires an
infinite Power to make, and fuftain, and rule it. So tho the
World as the object of God's Knowledg be but finite, It may re
quire an infinite Mind to comprehend all the affairs of it. The
Pfalmift concludes from God's telling the Number of the Stars
and calling 'em by their Names, That his Underftanding was infi
nite, cxWii Pf. 4, 5. How much more may we conclude that
Underftanding to be infinite, that comprehends at once all the
actions, and the very thoughts and purpofes both of Angels and
oiMen, and that from the beginning of the World to this ve
ry moment ? What higher thing can we conceive of the di
vine Underftanding ? Nay, if the Author's Argument were good
we cou'd not from the world that is but finite conclude, That
the maker of it is a Being poffeft of infinite Perfections. But.
I take his fuppofition to be fo far from being true, That 'tis.
more probable that the minuteft Creature as truly requires an
infinite Mind fully to comprehend, as an infinite Power to make it,
But the Author pretends to prove, " That we muft afcribe fuch
" an Univerfal Knowledg to Chrift as Man, Becaufe all Judgment
" is committed to him, and that as the Son of Man. And this
" Kingly Office by which he rules over all the World, and takes fpe-
" cial care of aU his Members, As it neceffarily fuppofes his Know-
" ledg ofthe whole Eft ate of his Church, and every Member of it,
" as far as is neceffary for the difcharge of that Truft, fo it unde-
" niably proves, this large Knowledg to be exercifed by him as Man,.
" however he gains it. For fince this Office and Power are given,
u they cannot terminate in the divine Nature -, For who can give to
" God any Dignity or Power, who has all originally in his own Be-
11 ing ? It muft be then given to the Man or human Nature only,
" and confequently he muft have all requifite Abilitys for it.
Anfw. The Author's Argument turns upon afalfe Suppofition,
That this Authority to Rule and Judge the World is committed to
Chrift only as Man. And the Text he alledges for it, is fo far;
from

(88 j
from proving it, that it plainly infinuates the contrary. The
Words are, The Father hath given him Authority to execute Judg
ment alfo, becaufe he is the Son of Man. 'Tis not as he is tbe Sm
of Man. (as the Author unwarily and groundlefsly afferts). This
Authority of executing Judgment is the Reward given to the Son
of God for becoming the Son of Man, and terminates upon the
whole of his Perfon as he is God-Man, the Incarnate Word or
Son of God. And if we confider him as the Word made Flefh,
and contemplate the Fulnefs of the Godhead as dweUing bodily in
him, he appears every way furnifh't with fufficient Abilities for
the Execution of his Regal Office, in the Administration of the
Affairs both of the World, and the Church.
But againft this the Author objects, " That if this Power be
" given, It cannot terminate on the divine Nature, For who can give
" to God any Dignity or Power, who. has aU originaUy in his own
" Being?
Anfw. Both the Father and the Son have this Power original
ly. And as it was the Son's voluntary Condefcention to fuftain
the Character of Mediator, fo was it the Father's voluntary
Act to devolve for a time all the Exercife of this Original Power
oi Ruling and Judging the World on his Incarnate Son. That
the Father judges no Man but has committed all Judgment to the
Son, is a temporary Sufpenfion of his own Right, and there
fore juftly reprefented as a Gift-, The Son acquires hereby no
Authority that did not originally belong to his Divine Nature-,
but he has this Dignity conferr'd on him by a voluntary A6t
of the Father, That the Exercife of this Original Power is folely
entrufted (during this prefent State of Trial) in his hands.
And this Priviledg the Father was capable of Giving, and the
Son of Receiving, notwithftanding his Unity in Effence with the
Father. And indeed were this Authority devolv'd into the hands of
a meer Man, we cou'd have no tolerable ground to truft, either
his capacity of Underftanding all our particular Concerns, or of

(8c,)
of adminiftring futable Direction, Relief, Affiftance, Comfort
and Support on all the various occafions we have, of applying
our felves to him. 'Tis true indeed, his Human Nature do's
act it's part in the Exercife of his Royal Authority (tho' how
far it's Power as well as Knowledg extends, we cannot pretend
to determine). But 'tis the Perfections of his divine Nature,
that are a full Security to our Taith, That he is capable of be
ing (as the Author fpeaks) a careful, a vigorous, an EffeBual Head
of his Body, and Ruler of the World.
For what the Author faith, p. 1 4. Column 2d, It runs wholly
upon his own Miftake of this Authority being committed on
ly to Chrift's Human Nature, and therefore we are neither con-
cern'd in the ObjeBion he propofes to himfelf, nor in his An
fwer to it.
He has another Argument to prove, That this Univerfal Know
ledge belongs to Chrift, drawn from his Sympathizing Compaffion
towards his fuffering Servants, and that arifing from his own Suffer
ings on Earth, iv Heb. 15, 16. Seeing we have not an High-Prieft,
that cannot he touch't with the Feeling of our Infirmities, but was in
all points tempted as we are, Let us therefore come boldly to the
throne of Grace, &C;
From thence the Author inferrs, " That lince Chrift can only
" Sympathize with his diftreffed Servants in his human Nature, and
" cannot Sympathize with 'em in their Troubles without knowing' em,
u he muft therefore know 'em aU as Man, or otherwife this ground of
" our Hope and Confolation in our Approaches to God is taken away.
Anfw. All that thofe Words of the Infpired Writer to the
Hebrews, do's neceffarily import, is only this, That our Lord
Jefus having been in our Nature tempted, and had an Experi
mental Senfe of the Infirmities and Miferies we are liable to,
is thereby the more capable of being a Compaffionate Intercejfor
for us. But they do by no means import, That he has fuch a
proper Sympathy with every diftreffed Chriftian, as we have
with an afflicted Friend (For that were inconfiftent with the
A a permit

(9°)
perfect Felicity, and Joy of his exalted State) and confequent-
ly they import not, That as Man he knows all their particular
Miferies. 'Tis fufficient that his divine Nature difcerns all
their particular Diftreffes, and the Remembrance he has of his
Own Sufferings in our Nature, renders him a Companionate
and Earn? ft fnterceffor for 'em, Tho' fhou'd we allow fuch a
jj&BQvvledg of their prefent particular Gafes to be communica
ted to his Human Nature by Revelation from the Divine, that
is united to it, I do not fee that this wou'd at all prove, That
an Univerfal Knowledg of all things paft as well as prejent
may be communicated to his Human Nature. And much lefs
wou'd it prove that immediate Knowledge of Men's Hearts to be
long to him, which he fo plainly afcribes to himfelf.
And for the Authorities he produces, he is hard put to it,
when he is, forc't to fhelter his own Opinion of the Univerfal
K^owfedge of Chrift's Human Nature, under the Covert of that
abfurd Moctrine of the Lutherans, concerning the Ubiquity of
it. They are Opinions well match't, and we fhall entertain
both of 'em, when we have renounc't om Reafon as well as our
Bibles. And if he like their company we fhall not envy him the
honour of ranking himfelf with thofe two Patriarchs of Alex?
andria and Rome, Eulogius and Gregory, ii they cou'd no better
Confute the Agnoeta then his Citations from 'em wou'd argue
they did ; But fince he directs us not where to find 'em, I fhall
not be at the neediefs pains of feeking 'em to no purpofe.
But for the three later Authoritys he quotes, Mx. Baxter's
is nothing to his purpofe, as were eafy to fhew if it were to our
prefent purpofe; What he cites from the Author of the future
StatefLimborch, and from Dr. Goodwin, dos not afcribe to Chrift's
human Soul fo Univerfal a Knowledge as he dos, and parti ca-
larly not the Knowledg of men's hearts., about which the Difpute
chiefly lies- And thofe Authors never perverted their dubious
Speculations about the extent of the Knowledg of Chrift's hu
man

(91 )
man underftanding, to rob him of the glory of his divine 5 to
which alone, as 1 have fhewn that glorious character can 'be
long, Of Searching the Heart and the Reins.
Having thus prov'd the Omnifcience of our Bleffed Saviour,
I proceed II. To examine What the Author has alledg'd to perfuade us that
our Lord Jefus dos difclaim this PerfeBion.
And for that he has but One Text to lay in the ballance a-
gainft all the Paffages I have already mention'd and vindicated.
And that is from xiii Mark 3 2. Of that day knows no Man, No
not the Angels in Heaven, Nor the Son, but the Father. Arid to
this Text the Author flily but difingenuoufly adds, the Father
only, when there is no fuch limiting Claufe in the Text it felf,
but only at 24. Mat. 3 6. Now from this Text the Author thus
argues, " Here the Son profeffes his ffytowledg to be limited, and
" inferior to the Father's, i. e. tbe Son of the Father, or Son of
" God. The Son as above Angels in Knowledg, The Son in the
" moft eminent fenfe. Now how is it poffible, fhe Son fhou'd be God
" infinite, and yet have but a finite Underftanding? &c.
Anfw. The Author is very unhappy in his arguing from fe
veral Texts, without ever confuting the Context, (as has already
appear'd in feveral Inftances ) and he is fo in this. For if he
pleafe to look into it, He will find, That our Saviour dos thefe
defcribe himfelf in his final Appearance, (when hefhaUcome in
the Clouds with great Power and Glory, and fhall fend his Angels t'o
gather his EleBfrom the four winds from the uttermoft part of Earth
to the uttermoft part of Heaven) not as the Son of God, but as the
Son of Man, at v. 26. And therefore we have all poffible rea'-
fon to underftand him here as fpeaking of himfelf at v. 32,
under the fame charaBer and confederation. And even under
that character he may well enough fpeak of his Kjtordedg fin
the divine Counfels towards mankind ) as fuperior to that of
Angels, and fpeak of God as his Father, without fpeaking of
ftimfelf as the Son in the moft eminent fenfe.

( 9* )
Our Author being aware of this, exclaims againft this Anfwer
as a meer fukerfuge, and popular Evafion, which he intends to
lay open the Vanity of. And to that purpofe he offers feveral
Remarks. Before he enters on thofe Remarks, he demands, " What in-
t( timation of any fuch DiftinBion of two Natures, we can point
'£ him to in thefe Difcourfes of Chrift ?
Anfw. I have already fhewn him, That in the paffagehe al
ledges againft the Omnipotence oi Chrift, he dos. diftinguifh be
tween his being the Son of God, and the Son of Man. That the
Paffage he alledges againft his abfolute Goodnefs is not to the
purpofe. And for this alledg'd againft his Omnifcience, The
Context clearly limits the fenfe of it. And fince the diftinction
of his two Natures is elfewhere clearly afferted. (Seel John 14,
ix Rom. 5. I Tim. III. 16. and feveral other places ). There
is no need it fhou'd be repeated on every occafion.
I come therefore to confider his Remarks. And
I. He objects, " that our Bleffed Lord Jefus, if himfelf was
" the Supreme God in any nature of his own, cou'd not have faid
" fuch things in any confift ency with Truth and Sincerity. He cou'd
not fay, He did not know the thing he did know. For tho we fhou'd
fuppofe that he confifted of two infinitely diftinB natures, and fo
(l had two capacitys of knowledg, fet fince himfelf includes both, It
',' follows, That the denying a thing of himfelf in abfolute terms, with-
" out any limitation in the words, or obvious circumftances, dos plainly
" imply a denyal of it's belonging to any part of his Perfon, or to any
" nature in it. For tho I may affirm a thing of a man that belongs
<< only to a part of him, yet I cannot juftly deny a thing of him which
" belongs to one part, becaufe it belongs not to another. As I cannot
u fay> -A Man is not wounded becaufe tho one Arm be fhot or woun-
lJ ded, the other is whole.
Anfw. I might here juftly fuggeft to our Author, How unrea-
fonable it is to meafure all our Lord's Expreffions, con
cerning himfelf, by what may or may not be faid of a meer
Man.

cc
¦ i,
CC

( 9) )
Mm. For that is to beg the Queftion, and take it for granted
That there is no fuch Union of two infinitely diftinct Natures
in him, as we judge to be clearly reveal'd in the Scriptures.
And the Author has faid nothing to refute the Arguments,
we draw for it from fuch Paffages as thofe fore-mention'd,
I John 14. ix Rom. f. I Tim. 3, 16. II Col. 9. Where he
is Styled, the Word made Flefh, The Seed ofthe Fathers according
to the Flefh, and yet God bleffed for evermore, God manifefted
in theFlefb, One in whom the Fulnefs of the Godhead dweHs
bodily. But to convince our Author that he is miftaken in
his Suppofition, That nothing can be deny'd of a Perfon, that be
longs to any part of him, I fhall give him a Parallel Inftance, re
lating to our Bleffed Lard, in which he denys fomething of
himfelf without any exprefs Limitation which yet belongs to
him in refpect of one of his Natures. Thus our B. Saviour
fpeaking of his approaching Afcention, at xvii John i 1. faith,
And now I am no more in the World, and / come to thee, &C And
again at xxvi Matth. xi. Te have the poor always with you, but
me ye have not always. Here our Lord without any Exprefs
Limitation afTerts, That he fhou'd upon his Afcenfion he no
more in the World, and they fhou'd not have him with them always.
But this is only true with refpect to his Human Nature, and
bodily Prefence -, and by no means true in refpect of his Divine
Nature, and the Spiritual Energy and Prefence of that. For our
Lord elfewhere tells his Difciples, Lo I am with you to the End
of the World, xxviii Matt. 20. Nay he has promis'd, that where
two or three are gather 'd together in his Name, He wiU be in the midft
of 'em, xviii Matth. 20. Nay he has affur'd every particular
Chriftian, that the Father and he wiU come to him, and mak^ their
abode with him, xiv John 23. So that our Author might upon
his fuppofition as reafonably charge our Bleffed Lord with in-
fincerity in denying without limitation his being in the World,
and with his Difciples, when, in refpect of one of his Natures
he fhou'd be ftiU in the World, and with them, As he charges him
B b with

(94)
with infincerity here, on fuppofitiort he had a divine Nature in
which he knew the day of Judgment.
If the Author pretend. That in the paffages I alledge, tho
there be no limitation in the words, yet there is in the obvi
ous circumftances, which confine our Lord's meaning to his
.bodily prefence as Man, I grant it. And I have the fame to al
ledge here -, for the Context here dos more exprefly limit his
words to his human Nature, by giving him that Appellation of
the Son of Man that belongs only to his human Nature, and
cannot fo much as refer to any pra-exiflent Nature that belortg'd
to him. So that the Words, as the Context leads us to ex
pound 'em, are the fame as if they had run, Of that day and
hour knoweth no man, No not the Angels, which are in Heaven,
Nor the Son of Man ( himfelf, that fhall then fo glorioufly ap
pear), but the Father. And if the Author fhou'd here demand,
How comes the Son of Man ( if the words be limited to him )
to be put before the Angels, as fuperior to them in knowledg ?
I anfwer, very juftly -, becaufe, As the Son of Man, he had the
fpirit without meafure, and did tranfcend the Angels in the
knowledge of the Counfels and Will of God relating to the
Salvation of the Sons of Men. He was in that Nature the
principal Meffenger of the Father, to reveal his Mind to us,
not only above all other Prophets, but above Angels too, who
never brought fo clear and full a Declaration of the divine
Will as he has done. It appears therefore that our Lord dos
not deny without any limitation, That he knew not, what he
knew in another Nature, For the Context fufficiently limits his
denyal to his human Nature.
li But cur Author parallels the Cafe with that of a Man who
" having two eyes, fhuts one, and keeps the other open, and then
" denys without limitation, that he faw fuch a one with whom he
,cc convers'd, meaning. That he faw him not with the eye that was
" fhut,tho he faw him with the eye that was open. And as fuch a
H One wou'd be taken for a Ljar or Deceiver, fo he thinks we ver-
' " tuaUy

(95 )
" tually fix this imputation on our Bleffed Lord, by fuppofing that
« having two kpowing capacity r, te dewjj Am fyoiwwg ^ atfolute-
« /y ^«^ indefinitely, which he dos kpow according to one. of thefe -
Mfw One would think, That the 4«*&r fhut both his Eyes
in drawing this Parallel. For his Argument proceeds upon a
falfe Suppofition both in Anatomy and PWM? anJd„f.ff lf
He goes upon a falfe Suppofition in Anatomy and Philofephy,
That a Man has tw Vifive Powers (anfwerable to the two know
ing Capacities, which we fuppofe in the Son of God and the
&L o/M^O becaufe he has two Eyes. But this all Anatomifis
will tell him, is a palpable miftake. For there is one cornmon
Senfory, where all the Nerves meet, and befides this the Op-
tick Nerves have a peculiar meeting- place, long before they
come at this common Centre. And therefore we underftand
from found Philofephy, that tho' there be variety of Organs
fiSfcrviSfto SenUion, yet there is but one common enfj
nr rlifrernina Principle. It is not the Eye or Nerve lees out
letZvesTZ refides where all thefe Organs meet.
And fince that fees whether one Eye or both be open, were a
It-right Falfhood to fay I faw not a Man £ufe I^only
faw him with one Eye, ^h,^0^"ng t0 two different
there are two , knowing Prmapte belonging ^ ^
Natures or Mmd^Tte ^inte^ ^
that the Jut*.* a bimue is wuic ui Foundation of
his own Strain) j«»V »"* °*e E^ t0V
his Parallel fails. _ . . t)--.;m;/v wv That
%4»m<. But this I deny, and t. II he tea .the ^6
oSy/'" "^ wWch WcngM to hint as the Sm 4
Man. But

(9*)
But the Author argues, " that if Chrift had a divine Nature
" and Knowledge, no doubt his Difciples {who, if any Body, muft
" be fuppojed to believe it) direBed the gueftion to that rather than
" to the imperfeB human Capacity. And yet in Anfwer to it, he fays
*' He knew not that Day, &c.
Anf. What he faith, No Doubt of, I pofitively deny, That on
Suppofition the Difciples believ'd the divine Nature and Know
ledge of Chrift, they direBed their Jgueftion to that rather than to
his imperfeB human Capacity. For they knew, That Chrift was
in our Nature the Father's Meffenger & Prophet, and as fuch
cou'd declare no more to 'em, than what was revealed to his
Human Underftanding, and what he had Inftructions from the
Father, to make known to 'em. And therefore never expected
to learn from him, all that the Eternal Word knew, but only all
that it pleafed to impart to his Human Underftanding for their
Inftruction and Edification. They addrefs'd their Enquiry to
him as the Son of Man, and as a Prophet and Teacher fent from
God, and expected to learn no more from him, than what he
cou'd in that Capacity inform 'em of. And accordingly, our
Lord, in anfwer to their Queftion, tells 'em, and that fincerely,
he knew it not. And do's it argue any Infincerity in the Man
Chrift Jefus to deny his Knowledge of it, becaufe that Eternal
Word that was united to the human Nature (but yet was a
Being entirely diftinet from it, and cou'd communicate more
or lefs of Light and Knowledg to the human Underftanding,
at it's own free Pleafure ) kriew it. There is no Shadow of
Guile or Infincerity in it.
But the Author is pleas'd further to parallel this Cafe with
that of a Popifh Prieft, " Who being examin'd about what he has
11 known by Confeffion, faith he knows it not, and vindicates himfelf
" by faying, That the Prieft in Confeffion knows matters only as God
" and not as Man, therefore he may deny that he knew 'em,meaning as
e: Man. This the Author tells us, Dr.Stilhngfteet cenfures as abfurd,
" Becaufe to fay he dos not know,M as much as to fay, He dos not
any

( 97 )
" any way know. Now faith the Author, // this he a good Anfwer
l< againft the Papifts, as no doubt it is, Then fure 'tis fo in the pre-
" fent Cafe. Therefore when Chrift fays, he knows not the Day of
11 Judgment -, 'Tis as much as to fay, He do's not any way know
" it. And confequently 'tis a vain Shift to fay, It was as Man on-
" ly. We muft beware, leaft we bring the Holy Jefus under fuch
" Reproach for Equivocation as the Romifh Priefts lye under, and
<c make the Jefuits themfelves think they have a good Title to that
" Name, by imitating herein his own Example, which in this very
11 Inftance they aUedge with fo great Advantage according to this
" Interpretation. Anf. The Author is very unhappy in the choice of his Paral
lels. For can any thing be more unreafonable and abfurd
than to parallel a Romifh Prieft that has but One Underftanding
or Knowing Capacity with our B. Saviour, in whom we fup
pofe two infinitely diftinB Natures, and two fo diftinct Under-
ftandings, the one finite, the other infinite. Now I have fhewn
him the Cafe is plainly thus, The Difciples enquire of the Son
of Man, as the great Prophet fent by the Father, concerning
the Day of Judgment. (And I have already fhewn him, that
tho' we fuppofe 'em to believe the Union of his human Na
ture to the Eternal Word, they had no reafon to addrefs their
Enquiry to him under that higher character). He,the Son of Man,
and that moft truly tells 'em, he knew it not. For the Man Chrift
Jefus to whom alone they addrefs't their Enquiry no way knew
it himfelf, and much lefs had it in his Inftructions to reveal
to them. And what tho' the Eternal Word, which had affumed
the human Nature, knew it ? Is it any Equivocation for the
Son of Man to deny his Knowledge of it, when he really ne
ver had that Knowledg imparted to him? Is there any thing in
this Cafe Parallel to the Prieft's denying his Knowledg of what
he do's really know, and folving it by ridiculoufly pretending,
that in Confeffion he knows matters only as God ? When he has
hut one Nature, and one Underftanding, and is no more truly God,
C c then

(9§ )
then the Author believes our B. Saviour himfelf to be ? And
therefore for the Author upon fo groundlefs an Occafion to tell
us, That our Interpretation enables the Jefuits to aUedg our Sa
viour's Example to countenance their vile praBice of Equivocation
with great Advantage, argues fo great a defeat both of true Judg
ment, and of that humility that becomes any Man that oppofes
the common Faith of Chriftians, nay fo great irreverence to
our B. Saviour himfelf, that I cannot let it pafs without expref-
fing fame }uft diflike of it -, And hope the Author will upon
fecond thoughts wifh fo indecent a paffage had never flrpt from
his Pen in fo ferious and weighty a Debate.
I proceed to his
2d Remark. " As a farther. Evidence ( faith he ) that Jefus ^
" Chrift intended no fuch DiftinBion of two Natures as is pretended,
11 'tis to be obferv'd, That he puts not the diftinBion between the
" Son of Man and the Eternal Word ( as fome fpeak )~but between
" the Son and his Father. . Not the Son knows but only the Father,
" 13 Mark 32. (a) By which 'tis plain, He had no thought of irt-
" eluding any Perfon or Nature of his own among the Excepted.
st For whatever was not the Father, he fey s, was ignorant of that
" day. Now 'tis certain, that in no Nature was the Son the Father,
" and confequently where none but the Father knows, None who is
" not the Father can be intended. And lince our Lord was making
" an Exception in the Cafe, he wou'd not have forgot to except the
" Eternal Word too, if there had been fuch a Divine Principle in
(l himfelf, equal to the Father and diftinB from him. For 'tis a
il known Rule that an Exception from a general Affertion confirms it
" as to other Inftances not Excepted.
Anfw The Father is here confider'd as the Difpenfer of all
Divine Revelations ; And under that Notion he is oppos'd,
Not to the Eternal Word and H. Spirit that are One in Effence
and Underftanding with himfelf, But to thofe whom the Fa
it) Here again he cites the Text wrong,, foi 'tis, not the Son, but the Father. ther

C 99 )
ther employs as his Meffengers to reveal his Will to Men. And
fo the Mather is here oppos'd, Not only to all Prophets ( by whom
God fpakje at fundry timer and in diver fe manners to the Fathers,
I Hebr. i. ) But to the Angels, nay to the Sim of Man himfelf
the greateft of Prophets, and the moft Eminent Meffenger he
ever fent. But our Author pretends, « That our Lord fayij
" Whafevei was not the Father was ignorant of that day.
" Now he argues, That in no Nature, was the Son the Father.
Attjw. Our Saviour faith no fuch thing, as That whatever
rras not the Father, was ignorant of that day. Unlefs the Author
means by Whatever was not the Father the fame, as, Whatever
was a Being in Nature and Effence diftinB from the Father. And
then I deny, That the Son of God is in no Nature, '.the fame
Befeg in refpect of his Effence with the Father. So that 'all'
the Author's Argument turns upon this, That that Phrafe the
Father only at xxiv Matth. 36. muft of Neceffity exclude, not
only aill whom God employs as his Meffengers to Men ( whicfe
we freely gran' ) but even the Eternal Word andi?. Spirit ( th©
the fame in Nature and Effence with himfelf). But this I de
ny, and fhall fhew him in an Inftance or two the abfurdity of
I might urge adhonunem all thofe paffages where the Unitarians
will not allow the word Only, to exclude all others except the
fubject to which it is apph'd. Thus when Solomon Taith of God;
thou even thou only knoweft the Hearts ofthe Children of Men. Our
Author himfelf prefumes to except our B.Saviour, tho according to
his opinion only a dignifyd Creature. So when our Saviour faith>
Thoufhalt worfhip the Lord thy God & him only fthalt thou ferve 4 Mat.
10. The Author, I prefume will freely own that only there do's not
exclude our B. Saviour, nor difcharge us from our Obligation
to ferve him, tho' he be not in his Opinion the God there fpo
ken of. But I fhall choofe rather fuch Inftances as are more un
exceptionable. Thus, Our Saviour faith, at xi Mat. 27. None-
k»ows*the Son but the Father. ( For fo WW* fhou'd be render'd).
But wou'd any wife man from thence argue, that none that is
not

( J 00 )
hot the Father Iinows the Son, and therefore, the Son (who is in
no nature the Father) dos not kpow himfelf. So at vi John v. 46.
we read, Not that any one 'wx-'fa t« hath feen the Father, fave he
that is of God, he hath feen the Father. But will any man thence
conclude, That the Father has not feen (or what is the fame, has
not known) himfelf ?
. To this the Author feems to reply, in what he adds under
this Head,
" Will they fay, That by the Father is meant aU three Perfons
," here, viz. Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft. What can the Father
" as oppos'd to the Son be put for the Father and the Son? What
Ci iiof ul- work wiU tbis make with Scripture, to fuppofe that what are
<c oppofed to each other, do include each other, under the very cha-
ct raBers by which they are oppofed. As weU may they fay, That in
K the Baptifmal Form, by the Father is meant Father, Son and
" Spirit, tho he be diftinguifh't from the other two. And I fhou'd
" defpair of ever underftanding the Scriptures above all Books that
u were ever written at this rate of Interpretation. No doubt there-
<c fore but the Father as oppofed to the Son excludes all that is the
" Son, and then there cou'd be no Son of God that knew of that
" day, which only the Father knew of, and confequently, No Son
* that is equal to God the Father.
Anfw. All this confident Reafoning is built on this Miftake
that runs thro' the whole, That the Father is oppos'd to the
Son on whatever account that Title is given to him. But I have
fhewn him the Context leads us plainly to expound it of the
Son of Man. And if we fo expound it, All his Argument is
overturn'd and loft. We underftand by the Father the Firft of
the Sacred Three, the Difpenfer of all Divine Revelations, and
not as he pretends, The Father, Word and H. Spirit. But we
fuppofe the Father here oppos'd, not to the Eternal Word and
H. Spirit that are One in Effence and Knowledge with himfelf.
Not to the H. Spirit, For he is elfewhere faid to fearch the deep
things of God, and to know 'em, as the Spirit of a Man does thofe of

of a Man, i Cor. II. 10, n. Not to the Eternal Word, For
he faith elfewhere, AU things that the Father has, are mine, there
fore faid I, he fhall take of mine, and fhaU fhew it unto you, xvi John
15. The Father is therefore only oppofed to all whom he im-
ploys as his Meffengers, to Prophets, to Angels, to the Son of Man
himfelf. And now, Let the Author apply this to his Argu
ment. No doubt the Father as oppofed to the Son (i. e. to the
Son of Man, as the Context expounds it) excludes aU that is the
Son (i. e. aU that is the Son of Man). But if he infer, Then there
could be no Son of God, that knew of that Day, which the
Father (as oppofed to Prophets, Angels, and the Son of Man)
knew of -, Where is the Confequence ? Or whence arifes the
mighty Difficulty of underftanding this Paffage according to
our Interpretation, unlefs it be from his own violent Inclina
tion to pervert it ? I come to his
3 Remark. " that Interpretation muft needs be unjuft, which
" if admitted, wiU make aH, even the moft plain Speech uncertain,
" and utterly infignificant. As this Interpretation of Chrift's Words
" wou'd do. For I ask *^e Patrom °f this Opinion, In what Words
il J. Chrift cou'd in breif have denied himfelf to be God moft Highl
11 if he had a mind to it more plain andfuU than thefe, in which he
" faith, He knew not all things as the Father did, nor cou'd
" do all things &c. So I , would fain have 'em fhew me, What
" Words of that Nature, he could have ufed, which the fame way of
" Interpretation as they here ufe, wiU not evade and make infignificant.
" For had he faid andfworn in plain Words thus, viz; I tell you,
" I am not the Supreme God, and none but my Father has
tc that Glory, they wou'd upon the fame Reafon have J aid, this was
" to be underftood as Man only, &c. So that I may fafely fay thus
'• much, That the B.Jefus has declared himfelf, not to be the Supreme
" God,' or Equal to the Father, as plainly as Words could fpeak, or
" in brief exprefs. And that this Declaration made by him already
" is not to be evaded, any other way, than what wiU make it impoffible
" his mind fhou'd be declar'd by any Words he could have defigned-
¦- D d " ly

( I0Z )
" ly ufedin the matter. Let any one try this, if it do not hold true.
u And fure it muft be an abfurd way of Interpretation, which leaves
** a Man no Opportunity or Power of Speaking his Mind plainly,
*J fo as to be underftood.
Anfw. I have recited this Remark at large, not fo much for
any Strength of Argument it contains, as to take this occafion
to remind the Author that more Humility would become him.
For I do not altogether defpair to make him fenfible that his
Confidence in this Paragraph is exceffive and beyond all due
meafure of Sobriety and Modefty.
To this purpofe I muft remind him, That I have already
fhewn, That our Bleffed Saviour dos not difclaim the power of
doing all things, but on fhe Contrary afTerts it, when he faith,
that whatever things the Father dos, he dos the fame likewife. And
that he dos not difclaim, his abfolute Goodnefs at all. And for
this paffage that refers to his Omnifcience, I have fhewn him
from the Context, It amounts to no more than this, that the
Son of Man knew not of ihe day of Judgment. And now our
Author asks the Patrons of this Opinion concerning the Deity
of Chrift, " In what words Jefus Chrift cou'd have deny'd himfelf
fC to he the moft High-God, if he had a Mind to do it, more plain
11 and fuU than thefe, and not to be evaded the fame way ?
Anfw. He might have done it moft eafily. Had he faid, /
am in no fenfe whatever the Supreme God. 1 came of the Fathers
according to the Flefh, and am only a Creature, and no way God
over aU bleffed for evermore. I never created all things, nor have
the power in any Nature that belongs to me, of giving being
to the leaft grain of Sand or fpire of Grafs, much lefs to all •
things vifibie and invifible, &c. God indeed fearches the Hearts and
the Reins, but I can no way do it, and know 'em only by Re
velation from him, or by probable conjeBure. God may indeed
difplay his Perfections in my human Nature, But I am not my
felf God manifefted in the Flefh -, Nor dos any of thofe divine
Perfections belong to me, much lefs dos the Fulnefs of the God head

(. I03 )
head dwell bodily in me. I am only the Word as the Meffenger of
God, but never was in the beginning ivith God, much lefs was Cod,
or made any of his work', being only a Man and a Creature like
your felves. Since you muft worfhip and ferve God only, You
muft By no means give Worfhip and Homage to me, to whom
no refpect is to be paid but what may be given to a digniffd
Creature, and infinitely differs from what muft be given to, fuch
an infinite Being as God, to whofe Excellency and Honour! ne
ver pretended. So that you muft upon peril of Idolatry beware
of honouring me ( even in my higheft capacity ) as ye honour the
Father. All thofe Paffages of the Old Teftament which fpeak
concerning the God of Ifrael, if any of my Difciples apply 'em to
me, muft be underftood by way oimeer Accommodation, and not
as implying me to be indeed that Bleffed Jehovah there fpoken
of. And now let the Author try his skill, how he will evade
all thefe Declarations againft the true Deity of Chrift the fame
way, that we evade this Text, That no Man knows of that day,
or Hour, nor the Angels, nor the Son, but the Father ? We affert,
That the Context expounds our Lord's words concerning him .
as the Son of Man. But for Chrift to fay, That tbe Son of Man
knows not the day of Judgment, is no Denyal at all of it's being
known to the Eternal Word to whom the human Nature was
united. But thefe Declarations I have laid down are not to
be fo evaded -, And yet the Author is the more concern'd to
make good his challenge, becaufe the Scriptures have afferted
the quite contrary to the foregoing Declarations in the cleareft
and plaineft Expreffions 5 So that his Argument rather turns
upon himfelf, and he will find himfelf harder put to it to
fhew us, In what plainer words The Supreme Deity of Chrift
cou'd have been deliver'd by the Infpired Writers, then thofe
I have now mention'd.
But our Author has not done, I therefore pafs to his
4th. Remark. <c This way of Interpretation (faith he) which
"( they are neceffitated to for upholding their Caufe dos plainly over-

( io4 ) '
~'xi throw it, and may be turned againft themfelver. For it may be faid
" according to it; that Jefus is not God, without adding any more.
" Naf,a Man may fay his Creed back^>ard,And fince the Apoftle' s Creed
?' takes notice of nothing to be believ'd concerning Chrift, but what
" belongs to his Manhood (which is very ftrange, if there were any
" Articles relating to:his Divinity, which muft needs be moft impor-
"** tt0t). , One may venture to deny 'em aU with this fecret Referve,
w viz. Meaning it of the Divine Nature. So one may fay, I believe
lc not that Jefus Cbrift was conceived of the H. Ghoft, &c.
Anfw. The Reader muft be put in mind, that our Author has
"proved nothing by juft Gonftru&ion; But that the Son of Man
denys his Kjiowingthe Day of Judgment. But will it thence fol
low, that we may fay in confiftertcy with our Opinion, That
Jefus Chrift is not God?. By no means-, It will only follow,
That we may fafely fay, the Son of Man is not God. And un
der that Reftriction no Chriftian thinks him to be fo. So On
the other hand, it will not follow, that we may fay, J. Cbrift
was not conceiv'd of the H. Ghoft, nor born of the Virgin .Mary,
nor fuffer'd under Pontius Pilate, &c. But Only that we may
fay, The Eternal Word or the Divine Nature was not conceiv'd
of theH. Ghoft, nor born ofthe Virgin Mary, &c. And under that
Reftriction the! AfTertion wou'd be true. So that this Objecti
on is not founded on our way of interpreting the Texts which
the Author refers to, but on his own Mifreprefentation of it.
But I muft, before I difmifs this Remark, ask the Author How
he comes fo confidently to affert, " That theApoftles Creed takes
" notice of nothing to be believed concerning Chrift, but what relites
" to his Manhood. Dos he think the Compilers thought him no
more than a Man, when they fay, I -believe in Jefus Chrift, his
only Son our Lord. Has he anfwered either Dr. Barrow, or Dr.
Peirfon on the Creed, who undertake to prove, that the Scrip
tures give him that. Title and Character on the account of his
Divine Nature ? And who have fhewn, That his being call'd
the Son of God on other Accounts is common to. him with
others.

( i°5 )
Others, Anc] that fo far as 'tis appropriated to him (by his
being, called hjs. only, or only-begotten Son) it dos as truly import
his Participation of the Divine Nature, as his being call'd the!
Son of Man imports his Participation of the Human i Or can
he produce any of the Antenicene Fathers, that underftood that
Title to be the Defcription of no more than a Dignify 'd Crean
ture? Or has he anfwered, what Dr. Whitby has produc'tto
the contrary out of thofe Fathers (a,) ? Till he do this, one
wou'd think it wou'd become him better to be a little more
modeft and wary in his AfTertion s. His laft and
5 th Remark is, " It weighs fomething with me in oppofition to
" this way of Interpretation, that the Evangelift s never takeoccafi-
" on (when they had fo many) to fubjoin any Caution againft taking
"Chrift's Words in their obvious fenfe, when he faith, He did not
" know the Hour, &c. If our Lord had no mind to reveal his
" Divinity (tho' 1 fee not, why he fhou'd deny it thus) yet fure the
" Apoftles who wrote fo many years after, and whom it concerned to
" reveal aU important Truths moft clearly, wou'd not have failed to fet
" the Reader right, by removing fuch obvious ObjeBiotls as thofe are
" againft the Supreme Deity of Chrift ; And faying, that he fpake
f this only of his Manhood, that he. k$ew not aU things, Sec.
Anf. I have fhewn him, That our Lor^ himfelf has in the Paf
fage he,fo. much infills on,fav'd his Apoftles the labour of adding
fuch a Caiition, by giving us the Caution himfelf. He has there
in the Context defcrib'd himfelf, as the Son of Man that- fhall
come in the Clouds with great Glory, and faid of himfelf under
that Character, That he kpew not the Day and Hour of that his'
glorious Appearance, but the Father, who has the Times and -
Seafens (of thofe glorious Events) in his own power, 1 AB 7. And
the like Caution I have fhewn him, Our Lord has given againft
mifunderftanding thofe Paffages which he makes ufe of a-
gainft his Omnipotence, v John 19, 27, 30. So that what the
O) See Dumitb/& Traftiw leDdnte Cbrifli, p. 59, 60, $1, 6%, (fc.
E e Author

( lo*" )
Author fuggefls is moft untrue, That our Lord in the Paffages
he has ailedged, denys his Divinity. And had the Author
carefully examin'd the Context in both places, he might have
found his own ObjeBions obviated. But he feems to have been
more intent on finding ObjeBions againft the Deity of Chrift,
than Anfwer s-. to 'em, when he overlooks thofe that were fo
near at hand, and cou'd fcarce efcape an Inquifitive and hum
ble Reader.
Upon the whole I hope every judicious Chriftian will fee
that thefe Objections againft our Interpretation of the fore cited
Paflages (tho' deliver'd in fo magifterial a Strain, and in fo in-
ful'ting a way) have much more of Noife ancl Shew than of any;
Solidity ox Strength in 'em. . .
Having finifh't this Argument for the Deity of Chrift drawn
from the Divine PerfeBions that are afcribed to him, and vin
dicated it, from what the Author alledges to perfwade us, that
our Lord himfelf difclaims 'em, I now come tb the
Hid and Laft Argument for the Deity of our B. Saviour,
drawn from that Divine Worfhip which the Scriptures require
us to pay to him.
As to this Head. The Author tells us, " He doubts not he cou'd
" maintain his Caufe with equal Advantage. And accordingly
he fuggefts. a few Arguments to fhew, " that there is no In-
" fiance of fupreme divine Worfhip given ultimately to him in Scrip-
" ture, But on the contrary, all the Honour it affigns to him, is fuch
" as fpeaks him to be inferior to the Father, and dependent on him.
I fhall therefore in Vindication of this Argument for the
Deity of Chrift from the Worfhip due to him, Firft, briefly State
the Notion of Divine Worfhip. Secondly, Shew, That the Scrip
tures require us to pay fuch Divine Worfhip to our B. Saviour.
Thirdly, Confider what Worfhip our Adverfaries, and particular
ly the Author feems to allow him ; and here I fhall both con
fider what he object s againft our Giving Divine Worfhip to him -,
and fhew, alfo How evidently that Worfhip he allows him en
trenches

( I07 )
trenches on the divine Honour, upon the fuppofition of his
being only a dignify 'd Creature.
Firft, I fhall briefly ft ate the Notion of divine Worfhip.
Now fince Worfhip in general imports the RefpeB we pay to
another on the account of his Excellency and Superiority, Divine
Worfhip muft import fuch ReJpeB as belongs to a Being of fuch
infinite Excellencys and Supreme Authority as the Bleffed God a-
lone is poffeft of.
And fuch J Worfhip is either Internal, confiding in thofe acts of
our Mind (fuch as Efteem, Reverence, Love, Truft, Subjection,
Self-dedication) whereby we acknowledg fuch infinite Excellen
ces and Supreme Authority to belong to the Being we adore-, £)r
External, And this is partly exprefs't by our words, in our Pray
ers, Praifes, &c. Partly by our Gefiures, as Kjieeling, Standing,
Bowing, Proftration, &c.
Now fuch Worfhip whether Internal or External, as does in
the nature of the acts themfelves, or by reafonable Conftructi
on, imply the Being we offer it to, to be poffefs't of the Per-
feBions and Authority peculiar to the B. God, is divine Worfhip.
I come therefore.
Secondly to fhew, That the H. Scriptures require us to pay fuch
Divine Worfhip to our B. Saviour.
To make good this Aflertion, I fhall briefly fet before the.
Reader thofe paffages that require us to pay Divine Worfhip
in general to our B. Lord, or to offer to him this or that parti
cular Branch of it.
For Divine Worfhip in general, All do agree that the Honour .
due to the Father is Divine Worfhip. But this Honour the Son of
God challenges as due to him at v John 23. What the Author
objects againft this I fhall confider in it's due place.
Again, Divine Worfhip is in general Exprefs't throughout .
the Scripture by our CaUing on the Name of the Lord.. Now we
are not only exprefly requir'd to pay this Homage to our B.
Saviour but 'tis made the Condition of our Salvation by him. To

( i4« )
To clear this we need only carefully compare the II Joel 32.
with x Rom. n, 12, 13, &c. The Prophet Joel fpeaking of,
the times of the Mefiah concludes his prediction with that gra
cious 'promife, And it fhaU come to pafs that wkofoever fhaU cattlon
. the Name ofthe Lord fhaU hefaved. Now the Ap. Paul urging,
the Jews to believe on and confefs the Lord Jefus in order to Salva
tion, cites two paffages to enforce his Exhortation, The one
from xxviii If. n, Whofoever believes on him fhati not be afhamed.
The other from ii Joel 32. That whoever fhall caU on the Name
of the LordfhaU be fav'd. And that none of what Nation fo-
ever might think themfelves excluded from this gracious Pro-
mife, he premifes this Encouraging confideration, That there is
now no difference between Jew and Greek, But thej'ame Lprd over
aU is rich to all that call upon him. v. 1 2. Now that 'tis the Lord,
Jefus whom he here exhorts us to believe in and call upon tin
order to Salvation, is evident not only from the whole fcope
of the Chapter and Context, But particularly from the 14. v.
Hf>w then fhall they call on him on whom they have not befieved?
And how fhaU they believe in him of whom they have not heard. ?
And how fhall they hear without a Preacher ? cVc. In whom they
were to believe as Preach' t to "em, On him they were to call.
But they were to believe in our Bleffed Saviour. He therefore
is the Lord over all that is rich to all that call on him. And of
him the Prophet Joel fpake when he faid, Whofoever fhall call on
the Name of the Lord fhall be fav'd. But all grant that Joel
fpake of the true God, and of that truly divine Worfhip, whicht
is his incommunicable Glory. That divine Worfhip therefore
muft be given to, our Bleffed Saviour by fuch- as expect Salva
tion from him.
And thus to worfhip our Bleffed Saviour by Religious Invocation
is fo neceffary and important a Duty, that 'tis made by the Ap.
Paul the effential character and mark of a true Chriftian. He
directs his Epiftle at 1 Cor. I. 2. To the Church that is at Co
rinth, To them that are fanctified in Chrift Jefus, call'd to be
Saints,

( *°9 )
Saints, with all that in every place cab* upon the Name of J. Chrift
mr Lord, both theirs and ours. And to the fame purpofe, 'tis
obfervable, that the Profeffors of Chriftianity were known by
this Defcription of 'em, they were fuch as caU'd on the Name of
our Lord Jefus$ ix ABi 14, 21.. I know indeed fome late Uni
tarians have pretended* That thefe Expreffions may be render'd,'
fuch as are called by the Name of the Lord. But this Cri iciftn
is fo fully confuted by Dr. Whitby, both in his En^.lifh Com-
meutary on the Epiftles, and efpecially in his Latin Treatife de
Deitate Chrifei,pi \6, 17. by fhe wing that the Phrafe is through
out both the Septuagint and the New leftament taken aBively,
and is varied whenever any are faid to be call'd by the Name
of another, that I prefume we fhall hear no more of it. (a.)
And this one Paffage at x Rom. n. 12, 13. is fufficient to put
the meaning of the Phrafe paft Difpute, efpecially if compar'd
with vii ABs 59. and with xv ABs 17.
And what I have faid concerning Divine Worfhip in general
may be applied to the particular ABs of it.
As to ABs of Internal Worfhip. Are we obliged to make the
Father the Object of out Faith and Truft ? So muft we believe
in our Lord Jefus, as well as CaU upon him, x Rom. 14. And
he himfelf requires it, Te believe in God, believe alfo in me, xiv
John 1. Are we required to Love God above aU ? So muft we
love our Lord Jefus more than Father or Mother, Brother or Siftert
Houfe or Lands, Tea, than Life it felf, x Matth. 37. xiv Luke 26.
So that if any Man love him not, Let him (faith the Apoftle Paul)
be Anathema Maranatha, 1 Cor. xvi 22. Are we requir'd to
fubject our Wills to the Authority of God ? So muft we be
the Servants of Chrift, we muft take his Yok? on us, and
do his Will, xi Matth. 29. III. Col. 24. Are we to live to God,

(a 1 The Reader that underftands the Greek Tongue may conlult the Septuagint
in the foUowing places. I Kingt VIlI. 43- IV If. i. LXIII if. 19. XIV #r. 19.
XV Jet. 16. IX Dm. J 8, 19. &c;
Ft as

. ( »° )
as our Ultimate End ? So muft we live not to our felves, but
to him that died for us, and rofe again, 2 Cor. v. 15. The Ad
vancement of his Glory and Intereft muft be our principal Aim
and Defign. Are we to dedicate our felves by folemn Cove
nant to the Faith and Worfhip of the Father ? So muft we to
that of the Son and the H. Spirit, xxviii Matth. 19. (Of
which more afterwards). And fure we cannot conceive any
more effential and important ABs of Divine Worfhip then
thefe. And for External Worfhip, We may obferve, That the feve
ral Branches of it are due to our B. Saviour.
One Eminent Branch of it is Praife and thanksgiving. And
fure I need not tell any true Chriftian that this part of Divine
Homage muft be paid to our B. Saviour. How frequently do
fuch Doxologies occur in the N. Teftament ? to him (faith the
Apoftle Peter fpeaking of our Lord Jefus, '1 Pet. HI. 11.) be
Glory both now and for ever, Amen. So 1 Pe*.iv. 1 n to whom be
Praife and Dominion for ever. So I Rev. 5:, 6. to him that has
loved us and wafh't us from our Sins in his own Blood, and made us
Kjngs and Priefts, to God and his Father, to him be Glory and Do
minion for ever. And 'tis manifeft that thefe Doxologies axe
parallel to thofe that are elfewhere offered to the Father. See
1 Pet. v. 10, 1 1. 1 Tim. I. 17. and vi. 16. So that if thefe ve
ry Doxologies are manifeftly ABs of Divine Worfhip, when
<ufed towards the Father, we have no reafon to take 'em
for any other, when offer'd to our B. Saviour. Efpecially
when we find both of 'em join'd in the very fame
Doxology, and have the fame Bleffing, and Honour, and Glory,
and Power afcrib'd to 'em. And yet this all Creatures whatever
are oblig'd to afcribe to him that fits upon the Throne, and to the
Lamb for ever and ever, v Rev. 13. And again, all the Mem
bers of the Church Triumphant with concordant heart and
voice afcribe, Salvation to our God which fitteth upon the Throne,
and to the Lamb, vi\Rev.iQ. And that the Lamb muft be there
under-

( i" )
underftood of the Incarnate Son of God, and not of a meer dig;
nify'd Man, is evident, becaufe he is exempted from the Rank
of Creatures which are all requir'd to pay this Homage to him,
and that on the account of his having in our nature been (lain,
and thereby redeeming us to God by his blood, from every kindred
and tongue and People and Nation. Now if fiich Doxologies as.
thefe when ufed to our B. Saviour be not ABs of Divine Wor
fhip, If the fame Glory and Praife and Dominion be not there.
by afcribed to him as to the Father, they muft be ufed in fo
vaftly different a Senfe, when apply'd to him from what is
meant when they are apply'd to the Father, that we cannot
think it confiftent with the Wifdom and Sincerity of an In
fpired Writer to ufe them promifcuoufly towards both, without
giving us any Diftinction in what a different Senfe they are
intended, when apply'd to the one, and to the other -, Nay,
without giving us any Caution againft the Idolatry,we axe in dan
ger of incurring by addreffing our felves to both in the fame
Language, if we put not a vaftly different Conftruction on the
very fame Words, when us'd in our Addreffes to the one or. .
the other. For there is fuch an infinite Difproportion between
the B. God, and the moft dignify' d Creature, that our Religious.
Refpect to the one and the other can never be fitly paid at the
fame time, in the fame Language, and the fame External ABs of.
Devotion. The like Glory and Dominion can never be congru-
oufly afcribed to both. Our Language to 'em ought to put the
utmoft difference that words can make between the Eternal in--
finite ExceUencies and fupreme Dominion of the one, and the finite
ExceUencies, and meerly borrow'd Power oi the other. But, there
is no fuch Diftinction made, when we ufe the very fame Doxo
logies to our B. Saviour as we ufe to the Father.
Again, For Prayer, We are requir'd to addrefs this branch.;
of divine' Worfhip to our Lord Jefus. This is particularly inclu
ded in our Calling on his Name. And we have feveral Inftan
ces of the practice of Chriftians being conformable to this- part Of ;

(.-t il )
of their character, That they were fuch as call'd upon his Name.
'Tis the common Form of the Apoftolical Salutations to wifh
Grace and Peace to thofe to whom they write, From the Father^ and
from the Lord Jefus Chrift (a). And fometimes they wifh the
Grace of our Lord Jefus Chrift may be with 'em (without any ex
prefs mention of the Father (b). It was to our Lord Jefus that
the Apoftle thrice pray'd, That the thorn in the Flefh might de*
part from him, as appears by the Anfwer given him, 2 Cor. ixii. £,
9. Nor ought we to forget the Prayer of dying Stephen the firft
Martyr for the Chriftian Caufe, whofe dying Requeft to our
bleffed Lord bears a noble Teftimony to this Truth, That this
part of divine Worfhip is due to him. Lord Jefus Receive my
Spirit, and Lord lay not this Sin to their Charge, 7 ABs $9, 60.
In which two Petitions he has manifeftly expreft his Faith in
our Lord Jefus, as both able to forgive the Sin of his Enemies^
and to reward and crown his own perfevering Fidelity. Nay
what greater Teftimony can we have to this, than the Petition
addreft to our Lord by his whole Church with which the facred
Canon is concluded, 27 Rev. 17, 20, 21. I fhall only add, That
fometimes we find the Father and our Lord Jefus joyn'd in the
fame particular Petition offer'd to 'em. As 1 theff. III. 11,12
1 theff. II. 16, 17. Sometimes the Apoftle begs fuch Bleffings
from our Saviour alone, 2 Theff. Ill, i5, 18. 6 Gal. n. ix
Phil. 23.
And as our Praifes and prayers axe to be addrefs't to him, fo
in thofe two Federal Rites of our H. Religion, thofe two Sacra-*
ments oi Baptifm and the Lord's-Supper, we are oblig'd to pay
Divine Homage to him.
In the Former (viz. Baptifm) We are as folemnly baptized into
his Name as that of the Father. And if our being haptiz'd into
the Father's Name fignify our Solemn Dedication to the Faith and

(a) 1 Rom. 7. 1 Gor. i. 3.
(b) xvi Rom. 24. 1 Cor. 16. 2%, &c Worfhip

( "3 )
Worfhip and Service of fhe Father. (As the Chriftian Churcli
has in all Ages underftood this to be the import of it). Then
our being Baptized into the Name of the Son and r H. Spirit, muft
imply the like Dedication to themi For had our Lord intended
no more by this Form of Baptifm, than our being oblig'd to
profefs the Religion which the Father (who alone is God) has
revealed by the Son (who is only a Man) and confirm'd by his
power of working miracles, which they fuppofe here call'd the
Holy Spirit, How very eafy wou'd it have been to exprefs the
matter thus ? And how needful was it to prevent fo pernicious
an Error, as the words (according to their Opinion) naturally
lead us into, Of taking thofe three into whofe Names we are
diftinBly Baptiz'd to be that One God, to whofe Faith and Ser
vice We are in that folemn Inftitution devoted? Nay how un
reasonable dos it appear, Not only that we fhou'd be thus Bap-
tizrd jointly into the Name of God and of a Creature, but into
the Name of Miracles, or of the divine Power that wrought
'em ? Why might we. not as well be Baptiz'd into the Name of
God's Wifdom, or Truth, or Goodnefs, which are as illuftrioufly
dli play'd in the Gofpel of Chrift, as into the Name of his Power ?
Nor can this harfh and forced Expofition of the Form of Bap
tifm be juftify'd from the Ifraelites being faid to beBaptiz'd into
Mofes. If indeed they cou'd produce us fome fuch Form as
this, by Which the Ifraelites were in the fame federal Rite, Bap
tized into the Name of God and the Name of Mofes, This wou'd
give fome countenance to their Interpretation. TiU then, we
muft tell 'em, being Baptiz'd into Mofes is not the fame thing
with being Baptiz'd into his Name, and much lefs in conjuncti
on with that of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and that in the
higheft and moft important act of Devotion imaginable.
And for the Lord's-Supper, We know 'tis the principal De-
fign of it to honour our Bleffed Saviour by a grateful comme
moration of his dying Love, by the exercife of a lively Faith
in him, By a renewed Dedication of our felves to him as our
G g Lord-

( n4)
Lord Redeemer, and by a publick Afcription of endlefs Glory
and Dominion to him in conjunction with the Father. So that
our Bleffed Lord Jefus is moft eminently the Object of that Ho
mage and Devotion which this Hqly Inftitution calls for. And
can any ferious Chriftian doubt whether the Celebration of it
bs an AB of divine Worfhip ? It was probably in the primitive
Church one ftated part of the Worfhip of every Lord's-day,
and was always accounted as truly a part of the divine Worfhip
they celebrated as any other act of Devotion whatfoever.
And for External ABs cf Worfhip, We are fure that our
Bleffed Lord did upon all occafions receive 'em without the
leaft check or caution to thofe that gave 'em. He faid not to
thofe that fell at his feet and worfhip't him as the Apoftle Pe
ter did to Cornelius, Stand up, for I my felf alfo am a Man, x ABs
25, 26. Or as the Angel to St. John ; See thou do it not, Worfhip
God, xixRev. 10. xxii. 9. Tho many did thus worfhip him
not only during his Life, - but his Difciples did it jointly after
his RefurreBion, and upon his Afeenfton. See xxviii Mat. 17.
xxiv Luke 52. And if any fhou'd pretend, That our lord did
not reprove thefe Worfhippers, becaufe they intended only to
pay him the Refpect due to an Eminent Prophet, but not the
Worfhip due to God, Yet fure according to their Opinion, our
Lord ought in all reafon to have reprov'd and caution'd Thomas
againft the Excefs of his Devotion, when in fuch a rapture of
Zeal he crj'd out to him, My Lord and My God, xx John 28.
But our Saviour is fo far from cenfuring his Devotion as irre
gular and exceffive, that on the contrary he approves and com
mends his Faith, at v. 29.
And fure I need not go about to prove, That to give fuch
Divine Worfhip to our Lord Jefus was the Univerfal Practice of
the Chriftian Church in it's firft and pureft Ages as well as
in all fucceeding Ones. Infomuch as thofe of the third Age
infift upon this as one great Argument to prove, That the Deity
of Chrift was the Belief of the two fore-going, viz. That our
Lord

( "5 )
Lord Jefus had always been the Object cf the Worfhip of the
Chriftian Church, even while they openly prCfefs't to Worfhip
God alone.
And no wonder that our L.Jefus fhou'd be the Object of the
worfhip ofthe Chriftian Cburch,when the Angels of God (that Hea
venly Hoft) are required to pay the like Homage to him. For fo
we are told by the Infpired Writer to the Hebrews, I Heb. 6. When
God brought his only begotten Son into the World, he faid, Let all the
Angels of God Worfhip him. And for thofe Unitarian Writers
that tell us, This Paflage is cited from xcvii Pf. 7. which is no
way intended by the Pfalmift concerning Chrift, but ufed by
him wholly on another occafion -, they do in effect tell us, That
according to their judgment/The Infpired M riter miftook the fenfe,
of 'em, and quoted 'em when they were no way for his purpofe..
And for thofe of their Writers that tell us, This Paffage is not
taken out of the Pfalm s, but cut of xxxii Deut. 43. where the
Septuagint has thefe words, Ltt all the Angels of God worfhip him-,
and that this Paflage refers only to Ifrael, the meaning of it
being only this, Let all the Angels of God mimfter for the good of
his People Ifrael, I fhall only obferve, that if this be true, then'
this Paffage is quite impertinent to the fcope of tbe Infpired
Writer. . For if Worfhipping one be only Mini firing to him (asr
it muft be if the Angels axe faid to worfhip Ifrael) : Then it
can no way infer the Superiority of Chrift above Angels, that
they are required to worfhip him in this Senfe, i. e. to minifler
to him. Angels thus minifler to us, who are Heirs of Salvation -,
But this no way proves our Superiority to 'em 5 Much lefs
wou'd it juftify any one's faying, that they are obliged to wor?_
fhip us.
And as the H. Scriptures thus require us to pay Divine Wor
fhip to our B. Saviour, fo they afcribe to him thofe Divine Per-*
feBions & that fupreme Dominion that are the folid ground of it.
One Ground of Divine Worfhip refults from the. Tranfcendent
PerfeBions oi the great object of it, fuch as his Onmiprefence, his,
Omni-.

(II<J>
Omnifcience, his boundlefs Goodnefs and Almighty Power : NOW
thefe are in the Scriptures afcribed to our B: Lord. He is re
prefented as prefent in aH Chriftian Affemblies, Even where two
or three are gathered together in his Name, He is in the midft of
'em, xviii Matth. 20. He is reprefented as taking up his Abode
in the Soul of every fincere Chriftian, xiv John 23. He is de
fcribed as Kjiowing aU things, nay as Searching the very Hearts
and the Reins of every particular Member that belongs to his
Church, xxi John 17. II Rev. 23. He is reprefented as doing
whatever things the Father does, as able by his mighty working to
fubdue all things to himfelf. He is defcribed, As the Lord over aU,
who is rich unto aU that caU upon him, x Rom. 1 2. Nay the Riches
oi his Goodnefs are Unfearchabk, and in him all fulnefs dwells,
even all the fulnefs of the Godhead, that of his fulnefs we may re
ceive Grace for Grace, III Eph. 8. I Col. 19. I John 16.
Another Ground oi Divine Worfhip is God's Supreme Dominion.
And as that is founded both on the Right of Creation and Con
tinual Prefervation, And the fuperadded Right of Redemption.
So the H. Scriptures afcribe to our B. Lord a Sovereign Dominion
founded on both thefe Titles. To him they attribute, as I have
already proved, Both the Making and the Upholding of aU things.
And to prove, That they attribute the glorious Work of Re
demption to him, were to tranfcribe a confiderable part of the
New Teftament.
I have the more largely infifted on this Head, both to fhew,
That we are far from going upon flight and rafh Grounds in
that Divine Worfhip we give to our B. Saviour, having the
whole Current of the New Teftament on our fide, as well as
the Univerfal Practice of the Chriftian Church -/and to con
vince every ferious Chriftian Reader, that this Controverfy is not
about a meer Speculative Point in which practical Religion is
little concerned, but about a Truth of great moment and con-
fequence, the Denial whereof is highly injurious to the Ho
nour of our B. Saviour, by taking away the only folid Ground of

(H7)
of that Divine Homage and Devotion we pay to him. But this
leads me to the next Head I propos'd, viz.
Thirdly, To cohfider what Worfhip our Adverfaries, and
particularly the Author do allow him -, and upon what
grounds they do fo.
Now as to this Point of the Worfhip due to our B. Saviour,
the Oppofers of his Deity are greatly divided among them
felves. It was this occafion'd fo fharp Difputes between Socinus on
the one hand, and Francifcus Davidis and Chriftianus Franken
on the other.
Socinus thought all thofe Paffages of Scripture which men.
tion the Invocation of Chrift, and afcribe fuch an Univerfal Au
thority and Power to him (i. e. that make him a God by Office or
Deputation) were fufficient Warrant for giving him Divine
Worfhip. And accordingly Socinus fpeaks of the opinion of
thofe that denied Divine Worfhip to our Saviour as a moft filthy
and pernicious Error, that led to Judaifm, and was in effect, The
Denying of Chrift, and tending to Epicurijm and Atheifm. Nay
he goes fo far as to tell us, he never knew any good and pious Man
of that Opinion (a.) Smalcius reproaches 'em as Perfons of little
Underftanding, and pufft up with a Jewifh Spirit, (b.) Nay elfe
where faith They are no Chriftians. Niemojevius cenfures them
as ignorant of Chrift, who had never tafted how good and kind the
Lord is Nay tells us, They are Pfeudo-Chriftians or Lukewarm
Ones not built on Chrift as lively Stones, (c.) Volkelius largely
proves fuch Divine Worfhip to be due to him, (d.) And Wol-
zogenius afTerts, It may be juftly faid, That they do not honour the
Father who deny the Divine Honour of Adoration to Cbrift as he

(a.) Soc'tn. Op. Tom. 2. p. 7J3:
ib.) Smalcius deDi via. J. Chnfti, ^p. 24.
\c.) Soci.i. Op. Tom. 1. p. 398- and T°m- 2' P- *66'
(i) Volkelius de ver£t Relig* /. 5- c*pV?'h

¦»

(n8)
is Man, For we have (faith he) demonftjated that the Divine Wor-
fhipg which is due to the Father, is alfo due to Chrift. (a.)
On the other hand, Francifeus Davidis, Chriftianus Frankgn,
Glirius and others deny'd that any fuch Divine Morftjip fhou d
be gjven to him? being plainly inconfiftent with the firft Com
mandment, an4 highly injurious to the Honour of God.
Now let us confider, What our late Unitarians think of this
Difpute, and what thejr own Sentiments and Practice are in
reference to it.
They do indeed tells us, " Some Worfhip « due to the
" Lprd Chrift. And therefore they diftinguifh between. Civil
" Worfhip due from Men to one another : Religious Worfhip
" given on the account of a Perfon' s Holinefs ok Relation to God,
*' which as to the degree may be more or leffer, as their SanBity or
" Relation to God is greater or leffer -, end this fort of Worfhip
" (theyteU us) is due to Holy Men and Women, to the Minifters
" of God, yet more to Prophets, and above them, to glorify'd
" Angels and Saints: And Divine Worfhip which belongs
" only to God. And this (they teU us) confift s in Refigning our
" Underftanding to whatever he reveals, (and O that they wou'd
u more confcientioufty pay this part of Worfhip due to him \) and
<l in Refigning our Wills and Defires to what he decrees and
u dos, and in giving up our Affections to love him above all.
" It confifts moreover in fuch External Acts and Significations of
il Reverence and Love, as we referee only for him, and never give
" to any other.
Accordingly, They tell us, " No Texts of Scripture prove,
" that the Lord Chrift ought to be xvorfhip't with more than a Ci-
" vii, or Religious Worfhip. And there are no aBs of Worfhip
" requir'd to be paid to him, but fuch as may be paid to a Civil
" Power, to a Perfon in High . Dignity and Office, or to Pro-
u phets and Holy Men, or to fuch as are actually poffeft of the
. .... i
: ( <«.) Wolzog, in 4 Mttth. 10. 5 tfohy.ij, 24. heavenly

( II? )
" heavenly Beatitudes. See 2d Collect, of Tracts. Anfw. to
" Mr.Milb. 49, 50.
And the fame Writer relating the Difpute between Socinus
and his Opponents, mentions the Anfwers his Opponents gave
to his Arguments without offering any Reply to 'em. On the
contrary he endeavours to fhew, That Socinus's Opinion about
praying to Chrift was inconfiftent with his Office as Mediator.
But yet he endeavours to clear it from the charge of Idolatry,
becaufe he fuppofes they may Pray to Chrift without afcribing
Omnifcience or Omnipotency to him. And upon the whole he
fuppofes they fhou'd in this difference bear with one ano
ther's opinion and practice.
To the fame purpofe, the .Author of the Letter concern
ing the Unitarians, blames the Polonian Unitarians or Secinians,
who excommunicated and depos'd from their Miniftry fuch
of their own Party, as deny'd That Chrift might be Pray'd to,
or Worfhipt with- divine Worfhip. And he commends the mo
deration of the Ttranfylv anion Unitarians, who admitted to the
Miniftry and to Profeffor's places, fuch as rejected the Invoca
tion and Adoration of Chrift, only obliging 'em under their
hands, that they fhou'd not openly oppofe it in their Sermons
and Lectures. And accordingly he alledges their Arguments
againft Worfhipping our Saviour, and anfwers fome of the
Texts alledg'd by others.
And whereas the late Archbifhop Tillotfen had infifted on this
Argument for the Deity of Chrift drawn from the divine Wor
fhip due to him, His Anfwerer tells us roundly, " They have
" wrote no Books thefe laft feven years, in which they have not been
" careful to profefs to all the World, That a like Honour and
** Worfhip (much lefs the fame) is not to be given to Chrift,
" as muft be given to God.
So that upon the whole, We may juftly place our prefent
Unitarians among thofe that deny divine Worfhip to our Bleffed
Saviour, and that allow him no other Worfhip than what (as
them-

( 12,° )
themfelves tell us) may be paid to a perfon, in High Dignity and
Office, to Prophets , or Holy Men, ox fuch as are aBually poffefs't of
the heavenly Beatitudes (i. e. To glorify'd Saints).
As to our Author he dos not feem at firft view fo very clear
in delivering his Sentiments about it as might be expected.
He faith indeed, " there is no Inftance of Supreme Divine Worfhip
"given ultimately to Chrift in Scripture. And fo far the Socini-
ans themfelves will agree with him. For tho' they affert,that
truly Divine Worfhip muft be paid him, yet they allow not him,
but only the Father to be the Ultimate ObjeB of it. And fay,
That the Divine Worfhip paid to him dos finally redound to
the Glory of the Father, who has admitted him to a Participa
tion of his own Honour. And yet there are other Expreffions
which feem to import, That our Author entirely falls in with
thofe late Unitarians, who deny any Divine Worfhip to be due
to our JS. Saviour. For he tells us, " The Worfhip paid to him
" being grounded upon derived and borrowed ExceUency, is not fu-
%i premely divine, and cannot be offer'd to the infinite, SelfiOrigi-
11 nate, independent Deity without a great Affront, becaufe 'tis not
" the moft ExceUent. From whence I think we may fafely con
clude, That our Author dos not allow Divine Worfhip to our
B. Saviour. For fure it were moft abfurd to call that Worfhip
Divine, which we cannot offer to the B. God, without affront
ing him, and (as our Author adds) without mingling Reproach with
Praife. I fhall therefore in order to the bringing the Debate on this
Argument to an iffue.
I. Confider what the Author has offer'd againft our Giving
Divine Worfhip to our Bleffed Saviour.
II. Examine the Grounds our Adverfaries go upon in the
Worfhip they aUow to our B. Saviour.
I. I -"fhall confider what the Author has offer'd againft our Gi
ving Divine Worfhip to our B. Saviour.
And the great Argument he infifts on, is, 'f Becaufe the
'[ Worfhip

( iii )
u Worfhip given to him is grounded on derived and borrowed Excel-
<w lency, which therefore is not fupremely divine, nor can be offer'd to
* the infinite felforiginate, independent Deity without a great Affront,
u as not heing the moft Excellent, I Mal. 14. To praife an indepen-
" dent God for Honour and Power granted to him by another, fup-
'' pofes a Falfehood, and mingles Reproaches with Praife.
Anfw. If the Author mean by derived and borrow d ExceUency,
fuch Excellency as the Supreme God, communicates to a digni-
fy'd Creature, I deny that the Worfhip which the Scriptures
require us to pay to Chrift is grounded upon any fuch derived or
borrowed ExceUency. 'Tis founded as I have fhewn on the Di
vine PerfeBions that are afcribed to him, and on that Right of
Creation and Redemption that can belong to no meer Creature
how dignify' d foever.
So if our Author mean by Power granted to our Saviour by ano
ther, any Strength or Might, or Authority which dos not original
ly belong to any Divine Nature our Lord is poffefs't of, and is
only beftowed on him as a dignify'd Creature by God as his Cre
ator, I deny that the Scriptures affign any fuch Ground of the
Worfhip they require us to give to our B. Lord.
And accordingly, I fhall carefully examine what our Author
has alledg'd to prove what he afTerts, That the Worfhip given to
him in Scripture is grounded on fuch derived or borrowed Excellen
cy, &c To this purpofe he argues.
" Thus our Lord requires Baptifm (if that be an AB of immedi-
" ate proper Worfhip) in his Name, becaufe All Power in Heaven
a and Earth is committed to him.
Anfw. I cannot well underftand why our Author fhould make
a Doubt of Baptifm's being an AB of immediate proper Worfhip.
Did any Chriftian before him ever doubt of it's being a Sacred
Rite by which the Perfon baptiz'd is folemnly dedicated to
that' B God into whofe" Name he is baptiz'd t And is not
fuch a 'Dedication the higheft and moft folemn Act of Devotion
-  Ii that

( I" )
rhat a Creature can pay to its abfolute Owner and Lord? So that
I cannot fee why our Author fhou'd queftion it, unlefs he be
afraid, That the Granting it will ftrengthen the Argument we
draw from thence for the paying the fame Divine Worfhip to
the -Son and H. Spirit, as we pay to the Father. But the Author
tells u?, " That Chrift therefore requires Baptifm in his Name, be-
" caufe, all Power in Heaven and Earth is given him.
Anf. Our B. Lord alledges all Po$&rin Heaven and Earth be
ing given him, as the Ground of his fending out his Apoftles to
go and difciple all Nations, to whofe Faith and Obedience he
had a juft Claim. And when he faith, All Power in Heaven
and Earth is given to me, He dos not mean (as our Author fup
pofes) that he had no fuch Original Power or Authority over
Earth and Heaven belonging to himfelf-, For it did always
belong to that Divjne Nature he is poffefs't of, and is the inse
parable Refult of that Work of Creation, which I have fhewn,
.that the Scriptures afcribe to him. But that the fole Exercife
of this Power is now devolv'd into his hands, and that he in
the quality of Mediator is the fole Adminiftrator of the Divine
Kingdom, This is the Father's voluntary Gift, and this our
Lord intends, when he faith, All Power in Heaven and Earth is
given to me. But this dos by no means, imply, That the Worfhip
of our Lord is founded on fuch a borrow'd Power as may be
communicated to a dignify d Creature : But on the contrary,
That 'tis founded on the Authority that originally belongs to the
Divine Nature oi our B. Saviour, tho' the Sole Exercife of it be
by a voluntary Difpenfation committed to him. Even among
Men, two or more may be poffefs't of the fame fupreme Au
thority, and yet the fole Adminiftration be in the hands of one.
We had an Inftance of this in the late Reign, when the Crown
was fettled on that illuftrious Pair K. WiUiam and Q. Mary,
and yet the fole Adminiftration was in the King's hands. This
is fome Illuftration of what I am here aflerting, That tho' the
Father and the Son axe poffefs't of the fame Authority^ yet the
fole

( ii3 )
fole Adminiftration of the divine Kingdom during this pre
fent State of things, may be by the Father's Confent in the
hands of the Son. I know indeed, That we muft not ftrain
fuch Comparifons in our Application, fo as to conceive of the
Father and the Son as two diftinct and feparate Beings. But
yet as their participation of the fame Divine Nature dos] not
take away that difference and diftinction between 'em, which
is more than nominal, fo fuch Examples may help us to con
ceive the more eafily of fuch a voluntary Difpenfation.
Again, Our Author argues.
" Thus we muft honour the Son (as truly, not as greatly)
" as we honour the Father, becaufe the Father hath commit-
" ted or given all Judgment to him, v John 22, 23.
Anf. The Text faith, That we muft honour the Son as we honour-
the Father. And thefe words (as truly but n^as greatly) are only
the Authors prefumptuous & groundlefs ^BSldition. Socinus his
Followers did from thefe very words juftly iLnclude, that di
vine Worfhip muft be given to our Saviour. For tp give him only
an inferior Religious RefpeB fuch as we may give to a Prophet,
or to a glorify'd Saint, or a moft dignify' d Creature, is not to ho
nour him as we honour the Father at all. For to offer fuch Ho-'
nour to the Father were to offer him the higheft Indignity and
Affront, and to Reproach inftead of Praifing him, as the Author
well obferves. So that we cannot Honour him as we honour -
tbe Father, without giving him the fame kind of Worfhip.
And the Reafon of our thus Honouring the Son which is there
affign'd, viz, Becaufe the Father judges no Man, but has committed
all Judgment to the Son, is fo far from implying, That we muft
not give him the fame Honour or Worfhip as we give the Father
that it implys the quite contrary. For becaufe the divine Go
vernment is in his hands, fo that he is the final Judge of all/
and the fole Arbiter of our Eternal Happinefs or Mifery 3
Therefore truly divine Honour is due to him. And that this
Rudiment is committed to him, dos. not import as I have already
J h  '¦"" foggefted:

Om)
fuggeftecl, That the Right of Judging the World did not origi
nally belong to that Divine Nature he is poffefs't of -, but on
ly, That the Sole Exercife of it being in his hands, is the Re-
fult of a voluntary difpenfation. And by the way I may obferve,
in confirmation of this Expofition,,, That tho the Man Chrift Je
fus fhall be empioy'd in judging the World, yet the Scriptures
do alfo afcribe it to God, and affert, That the Lord himfelf wHl
he judg, That every Knee fhall bow to him, that before him all the
dead Jmall and great fhall ft and. And yet we are exprefly told,
the Father judges no Man, but has committed aU Judgment to the
Son. So that God judges the World, when the Son judges it.
Nay 'tis obfervable, That the Apoftle Paul proves, That we fhall
all ftand before the Judgment- Seat of Chrift, from thefe words of
'the Prophet Ifa. xl%c. 23. As I live (faith the Lord) Every
Knee fhall bow to mefyid every Tongue fhall confefs to God. Now
if the Apoftle's Reafoning be juft, Our Saviour muft be that
Jehovah, and that God, before whom the Prophet had fore
told that every Knee fhou'd bow. For otherwife it wou'd no
way follow, that becaufe Every Knee fhou'd bow to God.Thatwe
muft therefore all ftand before the Judgment-Seat of Cbrift. So that
without fuppofing him to be God, we muft fuppofe the Apoftle
to alledg that as a proof of his Aflertion, from whence it cou'd
be no way juftly inferr'd.
Again, The Author argues, " Thus at the Name of Jefus muft
" every Knee bow, and every tongue confefs him to be Lord, becaufe
iC a sa Reward of his obedience God has given him a Name above
u every Name, and 'tis added, That all this Homage is ulti-
*f mately to the Glory of the Father.
Anfw. To make this Argument of any force againft Giving
Divine Worfhip to our B. Saviour, the Author muft prove, That
this Text fpeaks only of fuch a Dominion as belongs to' Chrift
as a meer dignify' d Creature, and makes that the fole Foundati
on ofthe Worfhip that is to be given him: But this I deny.
On the contrary, that every Kjiee fhou'd bow, and every Tongue* confefs

( i*5 )
confefs to him, proves him to be that very God whom the Pro
phet Efay fpeaks of in the forecited place, xiv. 23. And in
deed the former verfe plainly appropriates that Honour to the
true God. Lookunto me, and be ys faved aU the ends of the Earth,
For I am God, and there is none elfe, I hive fworn by my felf &c.
that to me every Knee fhatt bow, &c. See v. 22. 23. And yet
that the fole Exercife of the Divine Dominion, and an Autho
rity over Angels themfelves fhou'd be committed 10 the Incar
nate Son of God as Mediator, is the Gift of the Father, and the
Reward of that Obedience that our Saviour had paid in his
Human Nature. And our Acknowledgment and SubjeBion to that
Dominion dos redound to the Glory of the Father, whofe Good-
pleafure it was to reward the tranfeendent Love of the Son
to us, by this Conftitution. that he the Father fhould judg no
Man, but aU Judgment fhould be committed to the Son.
But the Author adds, " So that however there may be the fame
" common External ABs or Words, (fuch as bowing the Knee, and
" faying Glory and Praife, dec.) ufed to God and the Mediator. As
" alfo in fome Inftances, they are given in common to ordinary Men}
" Tet the mind of a rational Worfhipper, will make a DiftinBion in
" his inward Intention, as no doubt but thofe devout Jews did, who
" in the fame AB bowed their Heads, and worfhipped both God and
" the King, 1 Chron. xxix. 20.
Anf. For External ABs fuch as Bowing, Kneeling, no doubt we
may ufe 'em to exprefs either Civil or Religious Worfhip. And
therefore the Jews might both bo*> to God, and after that turn
and bow to the Kjng, the one to exprefs their Religious Homage,
the other their meer Civil Obeyfance. (For that they exprefs't
both at once by the fame individual Act of bowing is more than
the Text afferts). And here, there was no danger of any one's
miftaking this Refpect paid to the King for any other than
Civil Homage. The vifibie difference of the ObjeBs dos in this
cafe fufficiently diftinguifh the Nature of the External ABs.
But for Words, and particularly fuch as the Author refers to,
Kk the

( i ** )
the faying, AU Glory and Praife, ox aU Glory and Dominion be
afcribed to fuch a One for ever, We wou'd gladly fee, what In-
)ftances the Author can give us in Scripture of fuch Doxologies
being ever applyed toaordinary Me»,Nay or to the higheft Angel,
or the moft dignify'd Creature Whatever. And much lefs can he
give us one Inftance in which God and fuch a Dignify'd Cre
ature axe join'd together. Nay, for fuch External ABs as Bow
ing or Proftration we may obferve with what extraordinary
Caution both Good Men and Good Angels refus'd "em, when
they feemed to be given on any Religious account, tho' they
knew that thofe who offer'd 'em, never intended 'em as Acts
of ftridlly divine Worfhip- St. Peter never fufpetted Cornelius,
nor the Angel 'St. John of miftaking either the one or the other for
God, or of defigning to worfhip either of 'em as God. Yet both
exprefs't a Diflike of the External Homage becaufe given on a
Religious account 5 and the latter advifes St. John to appropriate
all fuch External Religious Worfhip to God. And if our B.
Saviour was no more truely God, than either St. Peter ox the An
gel (as our Author muft fuppofe) he fhould in all reafon have
been equally tender of the Divine Honour, and refufed all Ex
ternal ABs that look't like Religions Homage. Much more
fhould he have rejected with the utmoft Abhorrence and Zeal
the irregular Devotion of fuch as joined him with the Father
in afcribing the fame endlefs Glory and Honour and Power to the
one as to the other. For here there is extreme Danger of fuch
Doxologies leading us into what they account a pernicious
miftake, even to judg the Father and the Son equal in Effential
PerfeBions, when the fame Glory is afcribed to both in the fame
Acts of folemn Devotion. Nor would a good Intention in the
Worfhipper at all excufe fo grofs Imprudence. A Man may
bow his Knee both to his Father and to his Prince. But fhou'd he
compliment his Father with the fame Royal Titles he gives to his
Prince, and that in his very prefence, no good Intention of
making a DiftinBion in his own mind, would excufe his In-
difcretion 3

( i*7 )
difcretion $ No more than the Jews would have been excufa-
ble, if, when they bowed both to God and to the King, they
had ufed the fame Doxology to both, and faid, to God and to
the King be Glory and Dominion for ever : and gone about to
juftify it by pretending that as Rational Worfbippers they made
a Diftinction in their own Minds, and afcribed this endlefs
Glory and Dominion to the one and to the other in a very dif
ferent Senfe.
Having thus vindicated the Divine Worfhip we give to our
B. Saviour from the Author's ObjeBions, I proceed,
II. To Examine tbe Grounds our Adverfaries go upon in
the Worfhip they pretend to pay to him.
Now tho' they are all agreed in affigning the fame Ground
of the Worfhip paid to J. Chrift, viz. That Authority they fup
pofe him advanc't to as a dignified Creature, yet fome of 'em
think this a fufficient Ground for Giving him Divine Worfhip -
others think it dos warrant only the Giving him an infmour
Religious Worfhip, but not truly Divine.
As to the former of thefe, there lies an obvious & infuperable
Objection againft their Practice, that to give Divine Worfhip to
a Creature how dignify'd foever, is fiat and plain Idolatry, if there
be any fuch thing in the World. 'Tis the Scriptural Notion of
the Idolatry of the Gentiles, That they ferved the Creature befides
the Creator, (a.) And that they did Service (or Homage) to thofe
that by nature were no Gods, (b.) And againft this Idolatry we
are fblemnly caution'd in the firft Command, Thou fhalt have
no other Gods before me, xx Exod. 3.
Now to avoid the Force of this Argument there are two
things infifted on by the Socinians, which I fhall briefly con-
Firft " they fometimes teU us, they own Chrift to be the true
" God! as that is oppofed to aU falfe Gods, and that the moft High

(«.) I R«m- a«- f*° IV Ga1, '* «c God

( n8 )
" God hath communicated both his PerfeBions of Power, Wifdom,
&c. and his Authority to him, and therefore his peculiar Honour
and Worfhip too.
Anfw. That this is a meer Evafion will appear if we confi
der, that Either our Adverfaries take fuch plaufible Expreffi-
ons as thefe in their proper fenfe , or not.
// they take 'em in their proper fenfe, The meaning muft be,
that the moft High Godhas made the Man Chrift Jefus, Almighty,
Omnifcient and Supreme Lord of aU. But this is impoffible and
no better than horrid Blafphemy. 'Tis to deify a Creature
by afcribing infinite PerfeBions to a finite Being, and fetting it in
the place of the moft High God.
But if they mean no more, by the moft High God communi
cating his PerfeBions of Power and Wifdom to him, than that he
employs his Power to execute what our Lord Jefus would have
to be done, and reveals to him all things he is concerned to
know : and if they mean no more by his Communicating his
Authority to him, than that he has plac't him in the higheft fub
ordinate Dignity : But that ftill J. Chrift is no more by nature
than a Man, and no more poffefs't of any Divine PerfeBions,
than Mofes when God wrought Miracles by him, or the Prophets
when God revealed Secrets to 'em. (As they muft explain the
matter if they will fpeak confidently with themfelves) then
this no way takes off the Force of the Argument. For then
ftill J. Chrift is by nature no God, He is a Creature,not the Creator :
And to give him Divine Worfhip while he is fuch, is in the
Language of the Scripture as manifeft Idolatry as what the
Apoftles charge the Gentiles with.
But this leads me to confider their
Second Plea for Giving Divine Worfhip to J. Chrift, tho they
believe him to be no more than a Man, viz. That we Chrifti
ans have God's Command for doing it, which the Heathens ne
ver had for the Objects of their Devotion.
To fhew the Abfurdity of this Plea, I need only fuggeft. i. That

( izp )
i. That this Evafion fuppofes the Notion of Idolatry to de
pend on a meer pofitive Command, and not on a Moral.
Whereas on the contrary, The Notion of Idolatry is founded
on the Nature of things. The Evil and Malignity of it arifes
from the manifeft unreafonablenefs and incongruity of giving
that Honour and Worfhip which the infinite PerfeBions and
Supreme Authority of the only true God claim from his Crea
tures, to a Being that is incapable of thofe PerfeBions, ox of that
Authority. There is fuch an infinite Diftance and Difpropor-
tion between the Bleffed God, the Creator and Supreme Lord
of all, and the moft excellent of his Creatures, how highly fo-
ever dignify'd, That nothing can be more abfurd and repug
nant to Reafon it felf, than to give the Refpect that belongs to
that Infinite and Sovereign Being to any finite Being whatfoever.
'Tis moft apparently equal and juft, that Beings fo infinitely
different in their Nature fhou'd be treated with the greateft
difference poffible in the RefpeB that fhou'd be paid to 'em.
To give the Infinite God the fame Honour we give to a finite
Being is ( as the Author well argues ) to offer him the higheft
Indignity and Affront. And to give his Worfhip to fuch a finite
Being is to Deify it, and make an Idol of it. So that God can
ho more be fuppos'd to command us to give his Worfhip to
a Creature how highly dignify'd foever, then he can be fup
pos'd to command any other thing that is evidently abfurd
and unfutable to the Nature of things. So that our Adver
faries are reduc't to a defperate fhift, when they are forct to
deny the Morality of the firft Command, which both the Jewifh
and Chriftian Church have always look't upon as of irtdifpen-
fible and perpetual Obligation. And if this be all that.SW»K*
meant in charging his Brethren who denied Divine Worfhip
to Chrift, with Judaifm, viz. becaufe they look't on the Firft
of the Ten Commandments as Moral, They need not be a-
fham'd of the charge, but acted far more confonantly to all
found Reafon in denying Divine Worfhip to Chrift while they
L 1 thought

( i3° )
thought him no more then a dignify'd Man, then Socinus in
giving it. And indeed while that Command ftands in the
Decalogue, or till the Socinians have clearly proved the Repeal
of it, They will never reconcile their practice of fetting up
two feparate objects of Divine Worfhip, ( One a God by Na
ture, the other a Man and a God only by Office ) with the
Command, of having no other God before the Great Jehovah.
Nor will they ever prove the Repeal of it, while thofe words
of our Saviour ftand upon Record, iv Matth. 10. Thou fhalt
Worfhip the Lord thy God, and him only fhalt thou ferve. For they
clearly demonftrate that the obligation of the firft Command
is to us Chriftians perpetual and never to be fuperfeded.
2. If this Plea were allowable the Apoftle fixes his charge a-
gainft the Heathens upon a wrong Foundation.
He charges 'em as Idolaters becaufe they Worfhip't the Creature
befides the Creator, and becaufe they ferved thofe that by nature were
no Gods. But if the Socinians be in the right, There is no harm
in that at all. Becaufe if God pleafe to require it, They may
give his own Worfhip to a Creature, that is by Nature no more
a God then thofe the Gentiles worfhip't. (And they themfelves
fuppofe that the Apoftle and the Chriftian Church gave
it to J. Chrift, tho they apprehended him only to be a digni
fy'd Creature, and had God's Allowance and Command to
do fo ). He fhou'd therefore have only charg'd 'em with do
ing it without a warrant and command from the true God.
Nay whereas the Heathens did many of 'em pretend, That
their Inferior Gods derived their Dignity from the Supreme,
and had Divine Honour pay'd 'em by his Allowance, The Apo
ftle fhou'd have confuted this pretence. So that according to
our Adverfaries Opinion and Practice, The Apoftle makes
that their Crime that might be equally objected againft himfelf
and all other Chriftians, nay fuppofes it a fin againft the Light
and Law of Nature, and not againft any pofitive Command. As
is evident from I Rom. 25 v. compar'd with the foregoing. 3. This

( J30
3, This Plea is inconfiftent with God's own moft exprefs
Declarations. So that while thofe Paffages ftand in the Bible, That God
wiU not give his Glory to another, xiii //. 8. That the Gods that.
have not made the Heavens and the Earth fhall perifh from
the Earth, and from under thefe Heavens, x Jer. 1 1 . ( which
Prediction plainly refers to the times of the Gofpel ) We can
never believe, That God gives his own Glory to a Dignify'd Man,
and fets up one to be worfhip't as a God that was fo far from
making the Heavens and the Earth, that according to the Socini-
ans he did not exift till about 1700 years ago. Nay we can
never look upon the great Jehovah to be as he fo frequently
declares himfelf, jealous in the matters of his own Worfhip, .
if he admit a Creature to be his Competitor or Affociate in it.
xx Exod. 5.
But becaufe the Author feems rather to fall in with thofe
Unitarians that deny Divine Worfhip to our B. Saviour, I fhall
proceed to confider
The Opinion of thofe Unitarians who think that the Emi
nent Dignity and Power Jefus Chrift is advanced to, is a fuf
ficient Ground for giving him an inferior Religious Worfhip,tho
not that worfhip which is properly Divine.
And againft this I have thefe two things to offer.
I. If what has been produc't from Scripture to prove that
truly divine Worfhip belongs to our Bleffed Saviour, and that
on the account of the truly divine PerfeBions he is poffefs't of,
and of the Right he has to it by Creation and Redemption^ hold
good, Then thefe Unitarians who deny divine Worfhip to our
Bleffed Saviour are highly injurious to his Honour in refufing
to give it, and in putting him off with an inferior fort of Wor
fhip, even fuch as themfelves tell us, may be paid to a Civil
Power, To a Perjon in high Office and Dignity, or to Prophets and
Holy Men, or to fuch as are aBuaUy poffefs't of the heavenly Bea
titudes. For if an Higher Worfhip be due to him, Thofe that
G ive

( i30
give him only an inferior RefpeB, do really offer an Indignity and
Affront to him -, and their Worfhip fuppofes a falfhood, and min
gles Reproaches with Praife (To ufe the Author's Expreffions).
But
IF. On the other hand, If our Bleffed Lord be no more than
a Dignify'd Creature, Even the paying him any Religious Wor
fhip at all, dos entrench upon the peculiar Honour of God,
and is an Invafion of his incommunicable Rights.
To make good this charge, I fhall endeavour to fhew, That
the Scriptures appropriate all Religious Worfhip to God, and al
low of no inferior Religious Worfhip to be given to a Creature.
And that the Giving a Religious Worfhip tho inferior to J. Chrift
on fuppofition of his being only a dignify'd Creature, will ju-
ftify both Pagans and Papifts in that Demon-Worfhip which the
Scriptures condemn.
i. The Scriptures appropriate all Religious Worfhip to God,
and allow of no inferior Religious Worfhip to be given to a
Creature. By Religious Worfhip ( as oppos'd to Civil ) I underftand
fuch Worfhip as the Religion we profefs, directs us to pay
to fome Inhabitant of the Invifible World. Now according to
the Chriftian Religion, all Worfhip paid to an Inhabitant of
the Invifible World, is God's incommunicable due, and is in
the nature of it truly Divine Worfhip, whatever the Intention
of thofe that give it may be. And this will appear if we du
ly confider, What all Worfhip paid to an Inhabitant of the Invi
fible World fuppofes in the nature of the ABion it felf. Now
it plainly fuppofes the Being to whom we pay fuch Worfhip
to be prefent with us, To underftand the Homage we pay to him,
nay to kftow not only our particular cafe and circumftances, but even
our very hearts, and with what inward Intentions and AffeBions we
offer fuch Honour and RefpeB to him. To pray to fuch an Invi
fible Being fuppofes that he can both hear and help us, and that
he can judge of the fincerity of our Devotions. Now fuch an Un
limited

( '33 )
limited Knowledg of human Affairs and Dominion over 'em, Efpe
cially fuch a Knowledge of the hearts of Men, and fuch a pre
fence with aU Worjhippers where-ever they are, axe PerfeBions that
belong to no Inhabitant of the Invifible World but the Blejfed
God. And 'tis becaufe all Religious Worftnp dos in the nature
of the act ( whatever be the Intention of the Worfhipper)
afcribe fuch PerfeBions to the ObjeB of it, That God has ap
propriated all fuch Religious Worfhip to himfelf, and excluded
all other Inhabitants of the Invifible World from it. The Author
I prefume will not deny that the Jews underftood this to be
the true import and fenfe of the firft Command, thou fhalt have
no other Gods before me. They paid no Religious Homage to any
other Inhabitant of the Invifible World, as reckoning it con
trary to this firft and greateft Precept of the Decalogue. And
'tis no lefs certain that the Chriftian Church in it's firft and
pureft Ages were of the fame Judgment, and difclaim'd on
this very account, The giving Religious Worfhip to any but
God (a). (As I might eafily fhew bynumerous Citations from
Juftin Martyr, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, and others, if that
matter were contefted). And the Judgment both of the Jewifh
and Chriftian Church in this point is abundantly confirm'd by
our Bleffed Saviour himfelf. For he plainly declares his own
fentiments of the latitude and extent of this Command, when
he repell'd the Devill's Temptation to fall down and worfhip
him with this Anfwer. 'tis written thou fhalt worfhip the Lord
thy God, and him only fhalt thou ferve, iv Matth. 10. For whe
ther we fuppofe our Saviour to refer to the words of the firft
Command, or to thofe Parallel PafTages, vi Deut. 13. 14.x Deut.
20. 'Tis evident, that he has determin'd this to be the Senfe
of 'em, that aU Religious Worfhip and Homage muft be given only
to God. And whereas they would evade this plain Decla-

Cj.j The Learned Reader may Tee this fully prov'd by Dr. Whitby in his Trdtiitm
it Dch&ic Chrifti. p. 92, 9h 94> &«•
M m ration

( '34 )
ration by pretending that fuch Prohibitions of Worfhipping
any other but God, muft be underftood of that Supreme and ab
folute Worfhip that is due only to God, but not of an Inferiour &
Relative Worfhip, which may (as they pretend) be given to a
Dignify'd Creature 5 The Vanity of this Evafion appears from
this obvious Confideration, That if this pretence would
hold, Our Saviour's Anfwer would no way repel the
Force of the Devil's Temptation. For the Devil did not
claim Supreme and truly Divine Worfhip. But fuch an
Jnferiour RefpeB as was due to one who was conftiiuted a God
over this lower world, and to whom a Power over aUthe Kingdoms of it
was ¦ deliver'd, fo that he cou'd give it to whom he wou'd. Nay he
demands only a Relative Worfhip which ultimately referr'd
to the honour of the Giver, See iv Luke 6. And accordingly
he offer'd it to our Lord Jefus on condition of his falling
down before him. Now our B. Saviour does not alledg ^s a
Reafon of his Rejecting his Propofal, That the Devil did but
falfe fly pretend to any fuch Power, All the Power he had being
only by Ufurpation and divine Sufferance for wife and holy
Ends. ( Tho he might juftly have alledg'd this, and fhou'd in
all reafon, according to our Adverfaries, have infifted on this
ground for repelling the Temptation ). But he rejects it by
telling him, he demanded what was due to God alone, and was
his incommunicable Right ; And what Satan cou'd lay no claim
to, had his pretenfions of fuch a Power being deliver'd to him,
been never fo true. But now according to the Author's Opini
on, Our B. Saviour mifapplys this paflage from the Old Tefta
ment. For it wou'd not follow, That becaufe we muft wor
fhip and ferve God only ( i. e. with Supreme abfolute Worfhip^
That we may not therefore fall down to and pay an Inferior
Religious Worfhip to a Creature whom God himfelf has exalted
to high Dignity and Office. For according to them, 'tis npon
this very ground, That we muft pay Religious Worfhip to our
B^SiViouy himfelf, and the Devil here defired it on no other
ground.

( i}? )
ground. So that if this Diftinction of Religious Worfhip into
Supreme^aad Inferior, Abfolute and Relative be allowable, and we
may give the latter to a Dignify'd Creature, provided we re-
ferve the former for God; Our Saviour here gave a very weak
infufficient Anfwer, and the Devil was a weaker Difputant, that
cou'd not enforce his Temptation by the ufe of fo obvious a
DiftinBion. Whereas if the words our Lord cites do appro
priate all Religious it orfhip to God, then indeed, they are every
way fit to filence the Tempter, by fhewing the Unlawfulnefs of
what he demanded, even tho' his Pretenfions had been never fo
true. Nay, 'tis obfervable, That to the Paflage which our
Saviour cites out of the Pentateuch he himfelf has added this
Exclufive Particle only. Mofes had faid, thou fhalt fear the Lord
thy God and ferve him. And our Lord to render thefe words
more forcible againft theDevil's Temptation cites 'em thus,thou
fhalt worfhip the Lord thy God, and him only fhalt thou ferve.
So that if we will ftand to his Determination, thefe Words
do appropriate all Religious Worfhip to God, and fuppofe the
Giving it to a Creature, (tho' only on the account of a Power
or Authority derived from him, and therefore Inferiour and
Relative) to be a Violation of the Divine Law.
2. The Giving Religious Worfhip to Jefus Chrift, tho' only
Inferiour and Relative, on the fuppofition of his being only a
Dignify'd Creature will clear both Pagans and Papifts in their
Worfhip of Creatures from the Charge of Idolatry.
The Apoftle charges this Crime upon the Heathens, becaufe
they worfhip't the Creature bejides the Creator, who is blejfed for ever,
Amen, ( i. e. who is the fole Object of our Religious Adoration
& Praife) i Rom. 2s. and becaufe they fierved thoje that by nature
were no Gods, iv Gal. 8.
Let us confider, What the Heathens reply to this Charge
when manag'd againft 'em by thofe Fathers that wrote in de
fence of the Chriftian Caufe. jo

( i3«)
To this purpofe they alledge,
" That thofe Creatures they worfhip't were dii medioxumi &
" inferioris nota?, a middle fort of Gods of inferior note, made
" and advanc't to that rank °f Gods> b the Supreme God, who
« was the God of Gods, the King of thofe Gods, and Goddeffes
" that depended on him for aU the Dignity they enjoy' d^ And that
" thefe inferior Gods feUfo farfhort ofthe Supreme Deity, that they
" were rather to be reckon 'd among Men. that the Worfhip of thefe
" inferior Gods tended to the honour of the Supreme, from whom
" they deriv'd this Dignity, and to whom it muft needs be accep-
" table and pleafing to pay 'em this refpeB. this Worfhip being
" agreeable to his Orders and Council, and given on the Account
" of that Power and Authority he has vefted 'em with, and of
" thofe Benefits and Bleffings he has made 'em the Conveyers
i( and Difpenfers of. (a.)
Now 'tis manifeft, That thefe their Sentiments concerning
their Inferiour Gods axe very agreeable to thofe our late Unitari
ans entertain concerning our B. Saviour, whom they fuppofe to
be only a Creature, but conftituted a God, by being advanc't to
high Dignity by the Supreme God, who has therefore appointed "
him to be worfhip't5 The worlhip we pay to him redounding to
the Glory of the Supreme God from whom he derives his Power,
and on whom he depends for all the Dignity he enjoys.
How then will our Adverfaries juftify the Apoftles charge
againft the Heathens without expofing their own Caufe. For
'Tis obvious, That the Heathens might retort on the Apoftle, if
he were of the fame mind with our late Vnitarians, How
come you to reproach us with worfhipping a Creature befide the
Creator ? Do not you worfhip fuch a Creature too ? Do you
not fuppofe him conftituted a God by Office, and that the

(t ) Senec. Ep. 100. Juftio. Mart. Exhort, ad Gr. p. 19, 22. Aug. de Civ. Dei
1. 9. c. 3. I.4. c,9» ].6.c.-i¥\.%.c.6. Laft. 1. i.e. 5. Cellus ap. Orig+ 1. 8. p.
381. & 421. Hierocl.icCarm. Pyth.p. 9,10, 18. Celf. ap. Orig. 1. 7. p. 3774. piato
in Phaedro p. 24.6, Apuleius de Daem- Socr. p. 4.5", Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. 6. p. 63 1.
Worfhip

( 137 )
worfhip you give him tends to the honour of the God of God's
by whom he is advanc't to that Dignity ? How comes that
to be Idolatry in us that is none in you ? Again, How come
you to impute it as a Crime to us that we ferve thofe that by
nature are%o Gods ? Do not you ferve and pay Religious Homage
to one that is no more a God by Nature and Effence, than
thofe we adore ? Even to one that is only a God by courtefy,
and depends on the Supreme God for all the power he is vefted
with, and all the honour that's paid him.
And if it be faid, That we Chriftians have the true God's
Command for Worfhipping Chrift, but the Heathens had not
for worfhipping their Inferior Gods, (aj The Anfwer is obvious,
That the Ap. fhou'd then have fixt his charge on their doing
it without fuch a command and warrant from the true God, and
never made it their Crime to worfhip the Creature befides the Crea
tor, and to ferve fuch as are not Gods by Nature -, For this it
feems may be very lawful and commendable, when we have
God's Allowance or Command for it 5 and is only finful when
we do it without his order. So that all the fault of the Heathens
was, That they were miftaken in pretending to fuch an Order
from the Supreme God, when they really had it not. And
what will this lame excufe it felf fignify to thofe Unitarians,
that tell us, " We have no fuch Command to Worfhip Cbrift him-
" fe^f} tho they think it may be lawfuUy done, and dare not cenfure
(l thofe that do it ? And as for thofe other Excufes alledg'd by
the forefaid Author of the Defence of the Hiftory of the Unitari-
ans,viz. " that the Heathens fet up the Creature more then the Crea-
" tor, that they fet up an Infinite Number of Gods who had been
" meer Men, and that their Worfhip is terminated on 'em, and fo
" they made true Gods of Men. It appears by what I have al
ready alledg'd from the Patrons of Demon Worfhip among

f«) Which is the beft Excufe made for 'em by the Author of tbe Defence of the ffift.
cf tbe Vnit. p: J4- ) „ , - ,
N n the

( i3« )
the Gentiles, that they difown'd all this, They did not let up
Creatures above the Creator ( which were nonfenfe as well as
Idolatry ) Nor did they fuppofe their deceafed deify' d Heroes to
be Gods in any other fenfe then our Adverfaries foppofe the
Man Chrift Jefus to be. Nor did they fo terminate their wor
fhip on 'em, as not to refer it to the honour of the God of
Gods from whom fhey fuppos'd 'em to receive their power
and dignity. So that our Unitarians have HG way oi fnewing
the difparicy "between their Practice and that of the Gentiles,
but by imputing to 'em what themfelves openly difown.
Whereas it appears, Their Caufe is the fame by their making
ufe of the fame Evafions and Diftinctions in defence of it.
Upon the like grounds, We charge thofe of the Romifh
Church as Entrenching On the incommunicable Rights and Ho
nour Of God in their Invocation of Angels and glorify'd
Saints. But our Charge is not we'll grounded, if the Principles of
our late Unitarians be true. For the Papifts may defend their
practice by the fame Principles. They affign the like grounds
of their Religious Worfhip to 'em, " Thai Angels and glori-
" iy'd Saints are advanc't to great Dignity and Authority, that
" they have both vaft Knowledg and vaft Power communicated
" to 'em ¦-, That the Worfhip they give 'em is only inferior and
" Relative, and redounds to the honour of that fupreme God, who
" has rais'd 'em to this Dignity and Glory. And if thefe be
folid grounds of giving an inferior Religious Worfhip to a Gua*
ture, What ground is there to reproach their Worfhip as in
jurious to the honour of God, and an Invdfion of his peculiar right*.
So that our late Unitarians muft in this point give up the Caufe
to 'em, and muft never pretend to Charge their practice as
Idolatrous. And accordingly, The Apology which the Author of
the Defence ofthe brief Hiftory, &c makes for bis Party is very
lame. For all he has to fay in the matter is, " that the Pa-
\\ pifts have no texts of Scripture which require 'em to Worfhip " St.

„ „ -,. ' ( T39 )
" -St. Peter, St. Paxil, .and St, Francis. Were they content- (faith
he) 4o keep within the bounds of refpeB ahH honour due to glo-
u rifyd Saints, they fhou'd be; guilty of no fault. But to pray to
'* 'em as Mediators both of Interceffion and Merit, to dedicate
Churches to 'em, To fyeel down iefore their Images, &c Ihis ap-
"prsmhes too near to hiol.Uy.
Anfw. We are not here Enquiring whether the Popifh In
vocation of Angels an A Saints be Commanded or Uncommanded, or
in what particulars fome may exceed others in iir. Etlt ™ht=
. ther it be in it felf injurious to, the honour of God, ahd juftly c6n-
demnable on that account. And if it be not injurious to
God's Honour to give Religious Worfhip to a dignify'd Creature,
Hqw can it be prpv'd to be fo to give it to good Angels attd
glorify'd Saints ? Not only dos' Socinus affert, That communi
cated Excellency is a juft ground of Worfhip, But even the
Author of the Defence tells us, " That as there are' divers orders,
"¦pf Creatures, fo they are to be honmrrd in proportion to their Dig-
" nity. And That if the Papifts woud keep within the bounds of
" refpeB and honour due to glorify'd Saints, they fhou'd be guilty df
" no fault. Now the Papifts do not deny to J. Chrift a higher
honour than they, give to Angels and glorify'd Saints. What
wrong- then do they to the honour of. God, in Praying to an An
gel or a Saint, if Praying to a Creature be not injurious to his
Glory ? If it be faid, That their Praying to an Angel or Saint' dos
in the nature of the action it felf fuppofe that Angel or Saint
to he prejent with him that prays, to underftand his particular Cafe,
nay to know the inward intentions & affeB ions*, of his heart, and is
1 therefore injurious to the .'honour of God, by afcribing tO a
finite Creature that unlimited Prefence- and Kjiowledg tha'rbetongs
to God alone, and is by the Scriptures (as I have already
fhewn) frequently appropriated to him. Then the fame charge
may be brought againft all Religious Worfhip to J.Chrift on fup-
pofition of his being only a dignify d Creature-, becaufe on this
%pOfition, it afcribes to him the peculiar Excellencys of the
D ivine

( i4° ;
Divine Nature. Nay if Socinus himfelf, (a) and many of his
Followers, befides all the Followers of Francifcus Ddvidis, &c.
be in the right, That we have no Command in Scripture for Pray
ing to Chrift, their Caufe and that of the Papifts in the Invo
cation of Angels and Saints is every way built on the fame foun
dation, and muft ftand or faU with it.
. But if the Grounds they go upon be rriie, What tolerable
reafon can be given, why the Angel fhou'd fo ftrictly forbid and
-caution St. John when he fell down to worfhip him, See thou
do it not. Worfhip God, xix Rev. 10. xx Rev. p. Can we think
that St. John who knew him to be an Angel, intended him
any more than an inferior Worfhip ? ( And if fuch Worfhip be
allowable to an Angel at any time, 'tis when he appears and
is prefent). Why then fhou'd the Angel warn him againft it,
and that by infinuating to him that it wou'd be injurious to
God, whom alone he was to pay Religious Homage to ?
, Upon the whole, The Opinion and practice of the Unita
rians plainly readvances that Creature-Worfhip which it was
one great Defign of the Chriftian Religion to overturn and
abolifh. It undermines that grand Article of the EverUfting
Gofpel that was to be Preach't to every Nation and Kindred and
tongue and People, Fear Gdd, and give Glory to him, for the hour
of his Judgment is come, and Worfhip him that made Heaven, and
Earth, and the Sea, and the Fountains of Waters, xiv Rev. 6, 7,
By fetting up as an Object of Religious Worfhip a Creature to
whom neither the divine PerfeBions nor Works belong.
Having thus clear'd the Arguments for the Deity of Chrift
drawn from the Divine Titles, PerfeBions, Works and Worfhiji ^
which the Scriptures afcribe to him, from the Author's Excep
tions 5 It only remains, That I anfwer thofe few ftraggling

(t) Tho in this ( as Niemejevius juftly tells, Vim ; he had ruin'dhis own Caufe, by
giving thofe who oppos'd that divine Wor-Ihrp of Chrift which he pleaded for, the
greateft advantage againft him.
ObjeBi-

( »4J )
ObjeBions that he has confufedly thrown together at the end
of his Book.
The moft material of 'em is what occuxxs,p. 17, 18 -, where
fie argues againft the Supreme Deity of Chrift from it's being
inconfiftent with his Office as Mediator.
To this purpofe he argues, " If I muft have one who is Su-
" preme God and Man for my Mediator with God, then when I
" addrefs to J. Chrift as the Supreme God, where is the God-man
" that muft be my Mediator with him. to fay he mediates with
li himfelf, is the fame as to fay I muft go to him without a Medi-
" ator, &c. But the Scriptures fpeak of a Mediator without God,
" And who is this Mediator, if we ge to J. Chrift as the ultimate
« ObjeB?Anfw. All the force of this ObjeBion lies in the obfcurity
and ambiguity of it. And I need do no more to difcover
the weaknefs of it, than to diftinguifh thofe feveral acts of
Mediation which the Author's Objection confounds, and to
fhew what diftinct part his divine and human Nature act
therein. We believe as well as the Author, that there is one God, and
one Mediator with God, the Man Chrift Jefus, 1 tim. II. 5. And
to underftand his Mediation aright, We muft confider, That it
may either refpect his Prieftly or Kingly Office.
As his Mediation refpects his Prieftly Office. (And to this
alone the Author's Objection referrs). There are two
branches of it ; The one perform'd on Earth : The other
in Heaven. On Earth He offer'd Himfelf an Attoning Sacrifice
for us, In Heaven he appears for us in the prefence of God
as our lnterceffor and Advocate. Now we grant it was the Man
Chrift Jefus that became by his voluntary Sufferings and Death
our attoning Sacrifice. And to this AB of Mediation the Eter
nal Son of God concurr'd by freely delivering up that human
Nature he had affum'd to fo ftupendious Sufferings, and by
giving a fufficient Dignity and merit to thofe Sufferings to
O o render

( H2- )
render 'em a valuable Gonfideration for our Impunity. And
on that account the Ap. Paul fpeaks of the Church of God as
purchas' d with his own blood, xx ABs 28. Again, We grant
that the Man Chrift Jefus dos now appear in the prefence of God,
as our Interceffor and Advocate with the Father. But we believe,
that the Eternal Word to which that human Nature was united,
as it gave a fufficient value to his fufferings, fo it confequent-
ly gives a fufficient Efficacy to his Interceffion.
Now we may juftly enquire of the Author, Why the Man
Chrift Jefus fhou'd be lefs capable of either offering himfelf an
Attoning Sacrifice, or of appearing in the divine prefence as our
fuccefsful Advocate with the Father, on the account of his U-
nion to the Eternal Word? And why may not the Man Chrift
Jefus, in fuch a concurrence with the Eternal Son ef God, thus
mediate with the Father, who (as I have before fuggefted) dos
in this Oeconomy fuftain the character of Supreme Lawgiver,
without fuppofing that God mediates with' himfelf} If by Medi
ating the Author intend either Dying as our Propitiation, or ap
pearing in the divine prefence in the heavenly SanBuary with the
blood of Attonement ? For thefe are acts in which the human Na
ture is the immediate Principle and Agent, tho they are a-
fcrib'd to the Perfon of our Lord Jefus. And fure we may
eafily conceive how thefe acts fhou'd derive a higher value
from the Union of that human Nature to the Eternal Word.
But againft this the Author objects.
" If it be faid, His human Nature only aBs in this mediation,
" tho as united to the divine, I anfwer, that as this is ftill to make
" Chrift Mediator with himfelf, fo the human Nature is not God-
" man. And if the Man or human Nature alone be capable of do-
" ing the part of a Mediator, then 'tis not neceffary that J. Chrift
''¦ fhou'd be more than a man inhabited hy and related to God in or-
" der to that Office. Nor may it be faid, that the Union to the di-
" vine Nature, gives an infinite efficacy to thofe aBs of which the
[[ human only is the principle ; For unlefe by that Union the human
" Nature

( !43 )
u Nature was turn' d into an infinite or Divine Nature, It's ABs
Cl can no more be reckpn'd intrinfically and properly infinite, than his
" Body or Underftanding are infinite becaufe jo united to an infi-
': nite Nature.
Anfw. We do not fay, The human Nature only aBs in this
Mediation, Becaufe we fuppofe the Divine Nature of our Lord
to content to,i. and communicate a Dignity and value to the
fufferings of his human, and to contribute thereby to the pre-
valency of his Intercefiion. And it will not thence follow,
That our Lord Jefus Mediates with himfef, but only with the
Father* . Nor will it follow, That the Mediator is not God as
ivdlasMan, Or 'that the Human Nature alone can do the part of
a Mediator, and -That therefore it is not neceffary that J. Chrift
fhou'd be more than a Man Inhabited by and related to God in order
to that Office. A Prophet or Apoftle, nay every good Man is In
habited by and related to God, And yet fuppofing 'em as fihlefs
as our Lord himfelf, The Blood of fuch a, one cou'd never have
been a valuable Confideration for, the Redemption of Man
kind, It cou'd never have been an EffecTual Propitiation for
Sin, or a fufficient Ranfom to purchafe the Church of God.
And we cou'd have had- no folid ground to depend upon any
Interceffion in the Venue of it.* But we can depend on the
Sacrifice and Inferceffion of that Human Nature which the E-
tetnal Son of God affum'd, and to whofe Sufferings it Cou'd
confent-and communicate a -fufficient value for anfwering all
the ends of the Divine Goverment. And we do not as the
Author pretends, affert, That the ABs of Chrift's human Nature
become properly and intrinfically infinite i by it's Union to the Divine
( For that's impoffible) But only that hereby they become of
Infinite or unconceivable, and all fufficient value. The Dignity of
our Lord's Divine Perfon giving a value to thofe acts of which
the Human Nature is the immediate Principle.
But our Author pretends to demonftrate, That Chrift's Hu
man Nature can never be an Effectual Mediator ( according to
our

( 144 ;
our Judgment ) even tho' perfonally united to the Divine.
Becaufe ( he faith) " We deny this human Nature fo united to
" have the knowledge of the Secret mental Prayers, the inward de-
" fires and diftreffes of aU Chriftians, or to know any ones Heart.
" And how then can he be a Compaffionate Interceffor in Cafes that
" he knows nothing of ? Or how can he have a feUow-feeling of
" their Sufferings which he kpows not that they feel at att ? What
" comfort is there in this account of Chrift's Mediation ?
" Anfw. Either the Author fpeaks of an immediate Knowledge
of our mental Prayers ; of our inward Defires and our very
Hearts : or a knowledge by Revelation, As to the former, I
have fhewn him, That the Scriptures every where appropriate
it to God. As to the latter, Why may not we fuppofe as much
of this kind teveaTd to Chrift's Human Nature, and that in
confiftency with our Doctrine, as he ? Will Chrift's Human
Nature have the lefs reveal'd to it, becaufe 'tis perfonally uni
ted to the Eternal Word i So that if his Human Nature be capa
ble of fiich an Univerfal Knowledge of all our particular Ca
fes by Revelation, we have as much reafon to fuppofe it as he,
and are willing to fuppofe as much Knowledg of that kind
communicated to it by Revelation, as can agree to the finite
capacity of his human Soul. If itbe not, Our Author is as much
concern'd to anfwer this 'ObjeBion as we are. And upon this
fuppofition, It muft be anfwer'd by afferting, That as by one
and the fame act he offer'd himfelf a Sacrifice for all, the vertue
whereof is applicable to every true Chriftian in particular -,
So his Interceffion, fo far as his Human Nature acts therein,
confifts in his appearing in the Divine Prefence in the heaven
ly Sanctuary, (as the High Prieft did in the Holy of Holies
with the Names of the Twelve Tribes engraven on his Breaft
Plate,) the benefit whereof every true Chriftianas truly reaps
as if his particular Cafe were truly known to Chrift's human
Soul. Becaufe in his Divine Nature our Lord does underftand
their particular Cafes, and can apply futable Relief to ?em. But

( i4? )
But if his human Soul be capable of a more comprehenfive
and particular Knowledg „ by Revelation, 'Tis every way as
confiftent with our Doctrine as with his, or rather more.
But (faith our Author) " The divine Nature is precluded from
" it, becaufe they direB us to feek to that as the ultimate ObjeB
" thro' a Mediator, And the human Nature (they fay) may
" know nothing of our Cafe, nor k10lVS 0UY hearts, whether we wor-
" fhip and repent fincerely, or only hypocriticaUy, and fo knows not
" how to reprefent or recommend us to God. What a Cafe now do
" thefe men bring us into ? There is no Mediator left to interpofe
" with the Supreme God, fo that we muft deal with him immediate-
" ly and alone, which they wiU own is far from the Gofpel DoBrine
cc or method. Thus is our Lord Jefus turn'd out of Office on pre-
" tence of giving him higher Honour.
Anfw. 'Tis often harder to underftand the Author's Argument
than to anfwer it. What dos he mean by faying that the di
vine Nature is precluded from it? Is it precluded from the Know*
ledg of our Hearts ? No, fure, For we attribute to that alone
the immediate Knowledg of 'em. And what tho the Divine
Nature as it fubfifts in the Father, be the ultimate object of our
Addreffes, Will it thence follow, That the fame Divine Nature
in the Son cannot reveal to the human Nature it has affum'd
all the Knowledg of our particular Cafes, and of our very
hearts, that fuch a finite Nature is capable of ? And if it be
capable of Knowing 'em all by Revelation, Then our Au
thor's Objection vanifhes 5 If if be not, he is (as I have fhewn)
as much concern'd to anfwer it as we. And now let him re
view upon what ground he fo vainly infults, when he faith,
What a Cafe now do thefe men bring us unto? &c. We do as much
affert with the Apoftle as he, that the Man Chrift Jejus is our
Mediator with God ; So that we do not deal immediately with
him. And we fuppofe him the more capable to mediate ef
fectually, becaufe we believe the human Nature affum'd into
a perfon'al Union with the Son of God. Becaufe the Dignity
v P p of

( i4« )
ti his Perfon is capable of giving a value and. merit to his Sor
crifict, and a prevalency to his Interceffion. But let him con
fider Into what a Cafe he brings us, who afTerts what the Ar
ppftle Paul never did,, that our Mediator is only a Man. And
what is there in the life of a meer Man to render it a fufficient
Ranfom for all ? What value is there in the blood of fuch a
one to purchafe the Church of Gpd? What efficacy or merit is
there in fuch a Sacrifice to expiate and take away the guilt of
Sin, or &btnin Eternal Redemption for us? And if there be no
fufficient Vertue or Value in that, There can be as little pre
valency. in his Interceffion. Sp that all the Queftion amounts to
this, Whether the Man Chrift Jefus is more capable of being an
effectual Me diatfir. with the Father, cpnfider'd as United to and
acting in concurrence with & fubordination to. the. Eternal Son
of God; or confkjer'd as deftitnte of any fuch Union8c Relation?
And that the Appftle' never intended, by calling, the, Mediator
the, Man Chrift; Jefus to exclude his divine Nature, is fo evident
from his defcribing him elfewhere as not only the Seed of A<
hraham, but Gqd,over aUf bleffed for evermore, and by telling us
That the Church of, God was purchas't with his own hlood, that the
Author has highly injur'd him by fo grofsly misinterpreting his
words 5 We are very willing to ftand to the Apoftles account
of this matter at i Tim. II. 5. if the Author will but allow him
to be his own Interpreter at ixRom.^. xxABs 28.
And what I have faid dos fufficiently obviate what he only
repeats, " That they who hold true to tbe Vnity of the Divine
<l Nature, or one infinite Being under three modes, propertysorre-
" I at ions -, do by plain confequence leave no place for. fuch a Medi-
" ator as they require, viz. One who is an infinite God to be Me-
" diator with the infinite God, when there is no infinite Being
" but his own, and he cannot be thought to intercede with himfelf
" neither. All this Objection turns upon the Authorfs not allow
ing fuch a Diftinction in the divine Nature as we fuppofe- to be
between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,, and not: diftinguifh- ing

( i47 )
ing between thofe acts of which the divine Nature, and thofe
of which the human is the immediate principle, of which acts
belonging, to the latter this of Interceffion mention'd is one.
And if thefe Diftinctions be made, why may not the Man
Chrift Jefus and that as united to the Divine Nature in it's fe
cond manner of Subfiftence and Operation (or in the Perfon of
the Son) both offer up himfelf as a Sacrifice on Earth, and appear ¦
in the Divine Prejence in Heaven as our Advocate with the Father?
Nay, how infinitely. greater Reafon have we to expect that his
Mediation will be Efficacious and SuccefsfuL on this Suppofi
tion, than if with the Author, we fuppofe him to be only a
Man? L fhou'd here add^ That as to that part of Chrift's Mediation .-,
which refpects his Kingly Office, and which the Author's Ob-,
jection feems not to refer to, viz: His Difpenfing to us all Be
nefits and Blefirngs from the Father by his Royal Power, It dos
more fully appear, That the Difcharge of it dos require an
Unlimited and Divine Power, and cannot be performed by
one that is. a meer Man. N How can a Meer Man be the Head
of all vital Influences to all the Members of his Myftical Body?
ot exercife- an Univerfal Providence and Care over all the
Affairs both of the Church and the World ?
The Author at p. 1 8, 19. refers us for an Account of Chrift
to St. Peter's magnificent Defcription of him at the Day of
Eentecoft, before his Murderers themfelves. II Acts 22. Te
Men of Ifrael, hear thefe words, Jefus of Nazar-eth, a Man approv'd
of God among you by Wonders, Miracles and Signs, which God did
by him in the midji of you. Again at v. 36. Let aU the Houfe.
of Ifrael know affuredly, that God hath made that fame Jefus, whom
ye have crucify' d both Lord and Chrift. Now the Author infexxs,
" Why fhou'd the Apoftle if he had believ'd the Infinite Deity
" of Chrift leave out that moft Emphatical Branch in the De-
" fcription of him? that was the moft terrifying Argument and
« JI capable to convince his Perfection, &c. viz., That they.
tj " ' " had .

( H8 )
" had fhed the Blood of the Infinite God himfelf. Whereas
H what he faith is fiat and low in comparifon of this.
Anfw. All the Force of this Argument turns upon this Sup
pofition, That the Apoftle defign'd in thefe words to defcribe
our B. Saviour by the higheft Characters that belong to him.
But this I deny. It was only his defign to reprefent and
prove Chrift to have been the true Meffiah, whom they had un-
juftly crucify'd. And that it felf was fufficient to ftrike hor
ror into their Confciences. But it was hot his defign to in-
ftruct 'em in all the Dignity of the Meffiah. For // it was,
Why dos not the Apoftle tell 'em, they had fhed the Blood of
him, that was ofthe Fathers according to the Flefh, and was over
all God bleffed for ever more. Nay, of him in whom the fulnefs of
the Godhead dwetts bodily, nay of him who is the Brightnefs of
the Father's Glory, and the Exprefs Image of his Perfon, by whom
he made the Worlds ? For thefe are Characters of Chrift deli
ver'd by other Infpired Writers, and more magnificent ones
riian what the Apoftle Peter here lays down. And fhall we
expunge "em out of the Bible, becaufe the Apoftle Peter
thought not fit to mention 'em in this Defcription ? Nay our
Author dos not confider that this Argument is as ftrong againft
himfelf. He feems to own that Chrift had apraexiftent Nature,
at p. 2. ' And he fuppofes him, One by whom God made the
Worlds, as his Inftrument ; Nay as One far above Angels and Arch
angels, and over all Powers in Heaven and Earth, A God or Ruler,
and the great Admimftrator of God's Kingdom, both in the Vifi
bie and the Invifible World, at p. 21. And if the Apoftle Peter
believed all this, Was it not as neceffary and as proper to have
fuggefted fuch Characters of our Lord Jefus as thefe, to ftrike
the greater horror of their Crime into the Hearts of his Mur-
therers ? Is not his Calling him a Man approv'd of God] &c.
all low and fiat in comparifon of this ? Dos he not fee that this
Argument will be as ftrong in the Mouth of a Socinian againft
Chrift's having a pr&-exiftent Nature, as 'tis in his againft his
having

. ( »4S )
having a Divine Nature ? And how does he prove, what he
takes for granted, That the Apoftle. baptiz'd thofe he converted
without ever inftructing 'em in this Article of our Lord's Di
vinity ? Efpecially fince we are told, that 'tis only a part of
his Difcourfe to 'em that is there related. Nay I might here
fuggeft to our Author that tho' the Apoftle Peter dos not men
tion the Divinity of Chrift as an Aggravation of the Crime of
his Murtherers, who perhaps did not underftand that their
expected Meffiah was to be God as well as Man ; Yet another
Apoftle reminds 'em of it, when he tells 'em, That had they
known they would not have crucified the Lor d of Glory, i Cor. IL 8.
A Title often given to the great Jehovah, and alluding to the
Shecinah or vifibie appearance of Divine Glory under the Old
Teftament 5 Nay, the fame Apoftle calls the Blood of Chrift
the Blood of God, becaufe it was the Blood of him that was
God as well as Man, xx ABs 28.
And the fame Anfwer to this Text, 2 ABs 2 2. may ferve to
that Text he only mentions, x ABs 38.
He next adds, " that God and Chrift are two difparntes or
" different things, as much as Chrift's Body and Bread are, and
ic cannot be Predicated of one another in a proper Senfe, or without
lC a Figure.
Anfw. That God and the Man Chrift Jefus axe different things
we grant him, and that they cannot be predicated of one ano
ther in a proper Senfe. But what fignifies this to prove, That
the Eternal Word that was made Flefh is not God ?
Why he tells us, " To be anointed imports to be rais'd by
" Authority and Honour conferr'd, 'Tis in effeB to fay, the Perfon is
" a Creature or inferiour Being. And therefore to fay, That Chrift
" is moft High God, is to Jay the inferior is fupreme, and the Man
" is God.
Anfw. How miferable Trifling is this- ? When" the. Author
knows that Chrift or Anointed is only a Name that tho' given
to his Perfon, immediately referrs to his Human Nature as qua-
Q qi lify'd

( l9° )
Iffy'd for his Offices of Prophet, Prieft, &c. Can it be thence
inferr'd, That he has no other Nature than that ? We'll grant
him if it will do his Caufe any Service, that the Man thus
anointed is only a Creature and an inferiour Being, and as fuch
not the moft High God : But will it therefore follow, That the
Word ox Son of God, that affum'd and acted that Human Na
ture is not the moft High God ?
" But (faith he) If the Bufinefs may be folv'd here by making
" a perfenal Union between God and Chrift, I fee not why the Pa-
" pifts may not fet up fuch an Union between Chrift's Body and
u the Bread in the Eucharift, and then ftoutly defend, That 'tis the
«_' Body of Chrift.
Anfw. If the Author here argue at all, 'tis thus, If Chrift's hu
man Nature may be perfonally united to the Eternal Word, fo
that he may be God as well as Man, then Chrift's Body and the
Bread in the Sacrament may be fo united, that the Bread may
be his Body. But what Union will the Author find out for us
to make good fo ftrange a Confequence ? Do we fuppofe
Chrift's Human Nature tranfubftantiated or chang'd into the
Divine, as the Papifts fuppofe the Bread to be into Chrift's Bo
dy ? Or wou'd the Union of the Divine to the Human Nature,
infer fuch a Penetration of Bodies and all other Contradicti
ons to Senfe in a proper object of Senfe that wou'd follow up
on the Union of Chrift's Body to all the Confecrated Wafers on
the Romifh Altars ?
And yet the Author is fo pleas'd with this Shaddow of an
Argument, that it lead* him into a long Digreffion concerning
the Unfteddinefs of many Proteftant Writers, in which he
wou'd perfwade us, " That the Proteftants when they have an-
" fwered the Papifts, are forced to ufe thofe very Popifh Arguments
u they had baffled againft the Unitarians.
Let us take a fhort View of his Allegations.
*{ Thus he faith ) we anfwer the Papift'j Charge of Novelty
" by teUing 'em, our Religion was in the Bible, and yet objeB that
£ very Novelty to the Unitarians. Anfw.

( *9l )
Anfw. We donotbarely tell the Papifts that our Religion was
in the Bible. But that the Subftance of it has continued and
been profeffed ever fince. Tha. Popery is a Mafs of corrupt
Additions to it which gradually crept in, all or moft of which
were utterly unknown to the 3 firft Ages, nay, many of 'em
were not introduc't till the 7th, 8th, fome not till the 1 2th
Age, nay many of 'em were not authoriz'd by any General
Council (as they vainly call their pack'c Affemblies) till that
fcandalous one at Trent. Nay the cheif Doctrine of Popery,
the Papal Headfhip feems not to have been generally own'd in
the Romifh Church for a 1000 years after Chrift, and never by
the Eaflern Churches at all.
And why may we not in confifteney with all this, object
to the Unitarians, That, as their Doctrine is contrary to the
Holy Scriptures, ib 'tis to the concurrent Judgment of the
Univerfal Church ( both in Eaft and Weft ) for fo many Age*.
Is there no weight in fuch a Confideration ? fhou'd it not make
any wife man cautious of rejecting an Article which the whole
Chriftian Church has for fo many Ages taken to be fo impor
tant a part of her Creed ? And the contrary Doctrine whereto
never pafs'd in any Age without publick Cenfure ? But the
Author wrongs us if he pretends, That we lay the main ftrefs
of our Caufe here.
Again, He faith, " We prove that the Elements in the Eucha-
" rift are not Chrift's Body and Blood, becaufe they are by ihe Fa-
" thers caU'd the Images thereof. But we wiU not aUow the Uni-
" tarians Argument, That Chrift is not the moft High-God becaufe
" the Scriptures caU him his Image.
Anfw. And dos the Author think there is no difference be
tween the Notion cf an Image when apply'd to a bodily fub-
ftance, and - when apply'd to an Infinite Invifible Spirit ? And
will it follow, That an Image when apply'd to the latter, im
ports a different Being from that whofe Image it is, becaufe it
dos import fo when apply'd to the former ? Again,

( ipi )
Again he tells us, " that we prove againft the Papifts, that
" St. Peter was inferior to the Church and the reft of the A-
" poftles, becaufe he was fent up and down By "em, But we will not
" aUow this Argument when brought to prove that the Son is infe»
" rior to the Father.
Anfw. St. Peter's being fent by the Church was never
brought by any Man in his wits as an Argument to prove
that he was inferior either to the Church or to the Apoftles in
refpect of his Nature and Effence as a Man ; Nor indeed dos it
prove his being inferior in Office and Dignity to any of the
reft of the Apoftles. No more then can the Son's being fent
by the Father prove his being inferior to him in refpect of his
Nature and Effence, which is the Equality we affert ; And yet
if it will do our Author any Service, we will allow that it
proves what St. Peter's being fent dos not, viz. The Son to be
in refpect of Office inferior to the Father. The Father fuftain-
ing the character of Supreme Lawgiver, The Son of Mediator
in the oeconomy of our Salvation. So unhappy is the Author
in the choice of his Arguments, that to increafe their number
he brings in fuch as directly make againft himfelf.
" Once more he tells us, that againft the Papifts we urge People
11 to Enquire into and to Examine the matters in Difpute. But
" when we have to do with the Unitarians we tack about, and bid
V 'em beware of Reading and Difputing, and are for implicit
" Faith.Anfw. The A jhor may fee by this Anfwer (wherein he will
find the moft of his Book repeated Verbatim, and I am fure
not one Argument of any moment omitted) that we are not
afham'd of bringing our Caufe to the Light -, and are far
from either hoodwinking the People in Ignorance, Or urging 'em to
an imp1 kit Faith. We are not only willing but defirous they
fhou'd compare our Doctrine in this Article with that of the
Holy Scriptures. But I hope the Author dos not expect we fhou'd
advife every private Chriftian that is under no doubts in re
ference

( '?3 )
ference to his Chriftian Faith, or to this Article of it, to read
all the Pamphlets wrote of late by the Deifts and Unitarians
that tend to unhinge and unfettle his mind in reference to the
Truth of the Chriftian Religion or of this particular Branch of
it. Much lefs can he expect we fhould advife 'em to read
thofe pernicious Papers, without Reading any Anfwers to 'em $
No more than we wou'd advife 'em to venture on Poyfon with
out an Antidote.
And whereas he tells us, " that upon Proteftam Principles
" the Unitarians can ftand their Ground, and defend them/elves
" as weU as the Proteftants can againft the Papists. I think our
Unitarians fhou'd not boaft fo much of their I'rottftant Prin
ciples, when in that important Point of Giving Religious Wor
fhip to a Creature, they have fo manifeftly given up the Caufe
to the Papifts, and clear'd 'em from the Charge of Idolatry
in their Religious Invocation of Angels and Glorify' d Saints. But
I muft tell him, That as our Proteftant Doctrine that appro
priates all Religious Worfhip to God, will ftand as long as the
Bible dos 5 fo it will overturn their's, that give that Religious
Worfhip to our Saviour, while they believe him to be no more
than a Dignify'd Creature. And all their baffled Diftinctions
of Supreme or Inferiour-, abfolute & Ultimate or Relative Worfhip,
which in this Point they borrow from the Papifts (and Which
are the Plaifters they ufe to cover this Sore) will never be
able to fupport it. And I defire the Author to fet this one fo
lid Proof of his Party's Unfkddinefs to the Proteftant Cauf e,againt\
all the imaginary Inftances of our's that he has here alledg'd.
As to Primitive Antiquity, if the Author have a mind to try
his Skill he may enter the Lifts on this Head either with Dr.
BuU or with the Bifhop of Worcefter in his late Vindication of the
Trinity. (For I hope he will never take the Triflings of his
Anfwerer in the 4th Collect, of Unit. Tracts for a Reply to it.)
or even with Dr. Whitby in the few Citations he has from the
Ante-nicene Fathers, in his TraBatus de Deitate Chrifti. And
R r when

vrhen he produces any thing of moment againft the Authority^
they alledg, he may expect it will be fairly confider'd. Till
then, I fhall only tell the Author that we can have no Vene
ration for the great Defenders of the Chriftian Caufe, if they
fo grofly abus'd and ftrain'd their Eloquence as to equal a Crea
ture to the Eternal God. And on. the other hand, their equal
ling Chrift with the Father in refpect of his Effence is noi* in
confiftent with their afferting him to be inferiour in refpect of
Office, by a voluntary Diipenfation, as he may fee at p. 24,
25, z6.
As to the Author's Profeffion of his own fincerity in what
he writes* I do not pretend to judge him. To his own Matter
he ftands or fall&. I fhall therefore only obferve, that in his
Defcription of our Saviour's^ Offices he has left out his being
our Propitiation ox attoning Sacrifice. And that he might ftill
have believ'd the Father to be greater than Chrift, and God to be
the Head of Chrift (in the fenfe already explain'd) without fuch
a bold and dangerous Attempt as this to derogate from his
honour as God over aU bleffed forevermore.
As to the Charity he recommends to us, at p. 21, from the
Example of Juftin Martyr, I fhall only fay, that we are willing
to extend it as far as Reafon will allow. But he muft excufe
us that we dare not truft in any as our Saviour who is not the
Supreme God. See 11 Tit. 14. compar'd with xiv If. 21, 22.
There is no God elfe befides me, a juft God and a Saviour, there is
none befide me, Look unto me, and he ye faved all the Ends of the
Earth, For I am God and there is none elfe. And the Reader may-
compare the following v. with xiv Rom. 11. to convince him
that 'tis our Lord Jefus the Prophet there intends : See what
is faid above at p. 124. And we muft add, That it wou'd
extremely weaken the Veneration we have for our B. Saviour
and his Apoftles, if he fhou'd be proved to be a meer digni
fy'd Creature. For we cannot fee how he can be excus'd from
aff e&ing. Divine Honom himfelf 5 or the Apoftles from counte
nancing

( I?? )
nancing oux Giving it to him. And we judg, That the De
grading him to the rank of a Dignify'd Creature dos moft ef
fectually expofe him to the Scotn of Infidels as a vain Uf urper of
the peculiar Rights and Glory of the great Jehovah. So that
we think it every way fafelt to adhere to the Faith and Practice
of Juftin Martyr (how far foever we may ftretch our Charity
to trn.i'e that differ from us in fo important an Article) when
he faith " We (Chrijiians) worfhip and adore the Father, and
" the Soil that came from him and taught us thefe things, &c.
" and the Spirit of Prophecy, honouring 'em in Word and
h Truth. Apol:' 2. p. 56". C.
Chrift crucify 'd is no ft umbring- block to us (as the Author
groundlefsly fuggefts). But yet we cannot reconcile many of
thofe CharaBers the Author here gives him with the Opinion
of his being no more than a dignify'd Creature. We cannot
allow fuch a Creature to be the Maker of the Worlds 5
For what our Author adds of his being an Inftrument in
Making 'em, is a Notion that deftroys it felf (as I have fhewn
at p. 6a.) Nor can we believe him to be a meer Creature in
whom the fullnefs of tbe Godhead dwells -, and who is One with
the Father-, fNot One in Confent, but One in Energy and Power,
as I have fhewrt the Context explains it, at x John 30. com
par'd with v. 38.) Who is far above all Angels and Archangels,
heing the ObjeB of their Worfhip h Who is the great Admini-
flrator of the divine Kingdom both in the vifibie and invifible World.
And we think it far more abfurd to give thefe characters to a
meer dignify'd Creature, than (what the Author with fo daring
a prefumption represents as the moft compleat abfurdity) to af
fert That Chrift is the fame Supreme God (i. e: the fame in Na
ture and Effence) with the Father whofe Son and Image he is.
This is fo far from being abfurd, That our Bleffed Saviour can
not be his Sou (in a fenfe peculiar to himfelf, and incom
municable to any other, or as the Scriptures fpeak, his only-
bezotten Son) without a participation of his Nature and the
6 effential

( "fO
effential perfections thereof. Nor can he without it be the
brightnefs of the Father's Glory, and the exprefs Image of his
Perfon (or Subfiftence), as he is call'd, I Heb. 2. (Not a vifibie
Image as the Author groundlefsly fuppofes). But to give thefe
foremention'd CharaBers to a meer exalted Man plainly con
founds God and Man, Finite and Infinite, the Creator and the
Work of his Hands, Which is another kind of Abfurdity than
to fuppofe fuch a Diftinction in the infinite yet undivided
Nature of God, as the Doctrine of the trinity implys. And
if the Author, think this a grievous offence we cannot help it 5
But we think it a more real and grievous Offence, that a pro-
feffed Minifler of our Lord Jefus fhou'd rob him of the glory
of his Effential Deity, the denyal whereof we apprehend ob-
fcures the glory of that marvellous Wifdom and Grace that are
fo confpicuoufly difplaid in the Gofpel, and takes away from
that divine Inftitution what appears moft amiable in it, even
the unparallel'd Condefcention and Love ofthe Eternal Son of
God in his Incarnation and Sufferings for the Salvation of the
Sons of men.
And for what the Author fuggefts, " That this DoBrine of
" the Incarnation of God (i. e. of God the Son) hinders the
" Progrefs of the Gofpel, and occafions the RejeBion of it by Jews,
" Mahometans, and Pagans. I am fo far from being of his
Mind, that I know nothing (except Popery) more likely to ob-
ftruct the Progrefs of it than the Oppofition of our late Unita
rians to this Article of our Religion. For the Jews who be-
liev'd the extraordinary Prefence of God in the Cloud of Glory
both in the tabernacle and Temple, It can be no reasonable
Objection to them againft the Gofpel that God fhould be mani-
fefted in the Flefh and dwell in that more perfect Tabernacle or
Temple of an human Soul and Body : And for the Ancient Jews,
Our Author would do well to confider what Bifhop Kidder in
his Demonftration of the Meffiah has offer'd to fhew, that they
had fome obfcurer notices of the Chriftian Doctine in reference to

( '?7 )
to the trinity, and particularly The Divinity of the Word (a).
For Pagans, Their frequent Relations of the Defcent of their
Gods fhou'd render the Incarnation of God no way incredible to
'em j and what the greateft of their Philofophers has deliver'd
concerning a trinity of Principles in the Divine Nature, fhou'd
rather facilitate than obftrutt their belief of what we fuppofe
the Gofpel to dec'are concerning it. For Mahometans indeed,
This Doctrine may be a ftumbling block in their way. Foe
their great Prophet has taught 'em an invincible Reafon againft
God's having a Son, becaufe he never had a Wife. Sogrofs and
ftupid were the Apprehenfions of that vile Impoftor. But yet
tho* a Coalition between the Mahometans and Unitarians may
at firft view feem eafy and practicable, becaufe they both per
fectly agree in their Opinion of J. Chrift, That he was the Son
of Mary, and a Great Prophet, but by no means the Son of God
by a Participation of the Divine Nature 5 yet there are two
things in the Unitarian Scheme that will be as great a ftumbling-
block to the Mahometans as he fuppofes the Incarnation of God
to be. The One is, their Making Chrift a God by Office, and
Paying Religious Worfhip to him, at the fame time that they own
him to be no more than a Creature. And in this point the Ma-
hometans have certainly the Advantage, That they own none
as God butoMe, and worfhip no other Being, hot Mahomet him
felf whom they fuppofe the greateft of Prophets. The other,
That the Unitarians own the Truth of Chrift's Crucifixion (tho'
they deny the principal end of it.) And this it felf is a great
Stumbling- block to that ignorant but proud People, who can
not admit it into their Thoughts that God fhould permit fo
great a Prophet as J. Chrift to fuffer fuch Indignity from fo
defpicable Wretches as they efteem the Jews to be. And
for the Jews themfelves, the giving Religious Worfhip to Chrift
as a Deputy -God is fuch a Scandal to them as can never be re-
fa.; See Part III. Chap. IV, V, VI.
S f moved

( 1*8 ;
moved while the Firft Command itands in the Decalogue. But
for the Pagans, the Unitarians may hope for the greateft Har-
veft of Prpfelytes among them, For they have been fo kind
as to juftify their Demon-Worfhip from all Charge of Idolatry 5
and to oblige them the more, they have expung'd out of the
Chriftian Religion all it's peculiar Myfteries, leaving little in it
but the Principles of Natural Religion. . So that the Pagans
'have now only the Doctrine of the Crofs to get over. And
' as to that, they are told, That Chrift died chiefly to bear wit-
nefs to thofe Principles their own Moralifts had taught before
hira, concerning another Life. For the Chriftian Religion (faith
a late Unitarian Writer) is nothing properly but Natnral Religion,
whofe Light Sin had almoft extinguifh't. And God to give it it's
firft Splendor yeilds up Chrift to Death. See Scandal and FoUy
of the Crofs removed, p. 20. And what fhou'd hinder Pagans
from embracing Chriftianity, when 'tis prefented to 'em in fo
agreeable a Drefs, being really no other than Paganifm refin'd
andreviv'd? (See the Preface).
Upon the whole, We are for taking Chriftianity as laid
down in the Bible,and dare not abandon any of its facred Truths
how fublime and myfterious foever to accommodate it to the
Guft of Infidels. And therefore we dare not to pleafe them
deny the Effential Deity and Glory of the Lord that bought
us-, Nor are we afham'd to own him as Supreme God whom
we own as the Maker, and Ruler, and Judge of the World, the
Lord of the Jguick and the Dead. So that we can in entire
Coiifonancy with our Principles offer that Doxology to our B.
Saviour, with which the Author concludes his Book, (tho' ac
cording to his we cannot fee how he will clear that Practice
from the Charge of Idolatry). Unto him that loved us, and wafh't
us from our Sins in his own Blood, and has made us KJngs and
Priefis to God and his Either, even to him be Glory and Domi-
m&n fgr ever, Amen. I Rev. 5, 6.
t HE END.

THE
CONTENT S-
THE Controverfy eonvtrning the True Deity of our B,kffed Savi
our Stated, from page I to p. 5.
The I ft Argument for the True Deity of Chrift from the Divine
Titles given to him, p. 6.
What the Author objecls againft it confider' d, p. 6, 7, 8.
The True Deity of Chrift prov'd from the Title of God over all bleffed
for ever Amen, from p. 8 to p. 13.
The fame prov'd from the Title e/Lord of Lords, md the Author'*
Exceptions againfi it anftvered, from p. 14 to p. 20.
The Author'/ Argument againft the Supreme Deity of Chrift, from his
fpeaking of God as diftintt from himfelf, anfwer'd, p. 21, 22.
His zd Argument from Shrift's owning a God over or above him, an
fwer' d, from p. 23 to p. 29.
The fame Argument as rewforc't, from 1 Cor. XV. 24, 25, &c. anfmr'd,
from p. 29 to p. 36.
The Author's pretended Scriptural Account of the Deity of Chrift, from
X John 35, J5. And 1 Heb. 8, 9. refuted, from p. 35 to p. 41.
The II Phil. 6. vindicated from the Author's Exceptions, from p. 41 to
the end of p. 45.
The lid Argument for the True Deity of Chrift from the Divine Per
fections and Works afcrib'd to him, p. 47.
The Firft Argument under this Head from the Perfection of Abfolute
Omnipotence, p. 48.
That fueh Abfolute Omnifotence belongs to Chrift, prov'd from the Work
of Creation's being afcrib'd to him, p. 48.
That the Scriptures afcribe the Creation to him prov'd againft the Socinian
Unitarians, from p. 49 to the end of p. 61 . .-
That the afcribing the Creation to our Bleffed Saviour demonflrates his ab
folute Almighty Power, prov'd againfi the Arian Unitarians,/?"^ p. 62
The Author's Arguments againft this abfolute Omnipotence of Chrift, from
V John 19, &c. anfmr'd, from p. 66 to p. 73.
The fecend Argument from Abfolute Goodnefs. That this u a/cnb £;;:

* The Contents.
to our Lord Jefus, prov* Ui p. 73,74. , ¦ ;\
The Author's Riafoning againft it, from xix Matth. 17. anfmr'd, from
p. 75 tO p. 77. ¦¦[::¦£
The Third Argument from Abfolute Omnifcience, p. 77.
ThaKthis is afcrib'd to our Bleffed Lord, frdv'd from- fueh faffages as at
tribute to him the Knowledg of ai things ,. and the Arg. vindicated from
the Author's Exceptions, from p. 77 to p. 81 .
The fame prov'd from fuch paffages as. attribute to him the Knowledgof
the heart, p. 81, 82. The Author's Exceptions againft this Arg. refu
ted, from p. 22 to p. 90.
The Author's Argument againft the abfolute Omnifcience •«/ Chrift, from
xiii Mark 3 2. anfwer' d, p. 9 1 .
Tbe Author's $ Remarks to reinforce his foregoing Arguments, efpecially
the laft, anfwer' d, from p. 92 to p. 106.
The Hid Arg. for the True Deity of Chrift from the Divine Worfhip
due to him, p. 1 06. The Notion of Divine Worfhip ft ate d, p. 1 07.
That the Scriptures require us to pay Divine Worfhip to our Bleffed Saviour
prov'd, from p. 107 to p. 1 1 7.
The different Opinion and Practice ef our Adverfarys in this Point, and
particularly that of the Enghfh Vnitarians, and of our Author, from p.
117 to 120.
The Author's Arguments againft giving Divine Worfhip- to our Saviour
arifwered, from p. 1 20 to 1 27.
The^JnreaJonablenefs of the Socinians in giving Divine Worfhip to hirt?,
while they believe him only a dignify'd Man, prov'd, and the Charge of
Idolatry on this account made good, from p. 1 27 to p, 1 3 1 .
The Opinion and Practice of the Unitarians and the Author in giving an
inferior Religious Worfhip to om Bltjfed Saviour prov'd to be highly in'
juridus to him if he be truly God. If he be not, injurious to the honour
of God, who is the fole Object of Religious Worfhip, und tending to ju-
flify both Pagans and Papifts in, their Demon-Worfhip, from p. 1 31 to ps
140.
The Author's Objection againft the True Deity of Chrift from his Office of
Mediator anfwer' d, from p. 140 top. 147.
Hii ObjcB-.. from 2 A-fts 2 2 anfwer' d, from p. 1 47 to p. 1 49.
His Inftances of the Vnfteadinefs of Proteftant Writers in dealing with the
;. Papifts,; arid with the Unitarians confider' d, from p. 150 to 152.
His general Reflections at the end of his Book animadverted on, from p.
1 52 to the End.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 4783