IT may perhaps be accounted a bold Dissent from Custom, if not a Breach of good Manners, to begin an Epistle of this Nature without a formal Apology, representing my own Inability, my want of Time for Accuracy, or, that I undertook it with great Reluc­tance; and therefore, that all Faults and Imperfections must be imputed to those who urg'd me, rather than to my self. But as these fashionable Prologues (tho' they commonly discover a greater Penetration and Accuracy than the Pieces themselves, to which they are annexed) are seldom much regarded, and perhaps rarely sincere; you will excuse me if I ease you of the Trouble of read­ing One, before you come to the real Matter and Design of this Letter.—

THE main End of Speaking and Writing (especi­ally when any Thing of a religious Nature and Impor­tance is the Subject) should be, to be thoroughly un­derstood—And this End (I am bold to affirm) is what I have aim'd at, how far soever I have miss'd it in what follows.—I have but one Favour to beg, before I acquaint you with my general Design; and that is, that you would not look upon it as any designed Reflection upon your own Genius, Penetration or Learning, that I have carefully avoided those labour'd Distinctions, Criticisms [Page 2] and Niceties, which tend to bewilder and confound, rather than in the least to instruct, by far the greater Part of Mankind; who are Strangers to scholastick Nice­ties, and the various Methods and Arts of Sophistry; and are often easily puzzled and imposed upon by the mere Charm of Words, which either have no Meaning at all, or the true Sense of which they never come at.— What I have principally consulted is, to discover Truth; and express it in a Manner plain and intelligible, even to the lowest and most vulgar Capacity; the Subject being such as equally concerns the High and Low, the Wise and Simple, the Learned and Illiterate, to understand: —And should this End be answered, I shall be entirely easy, tho' you and the World should judge that here is nothing either learned or new—In a Word, I am far from thinking, and as far from desiring you should think, that I here present you with any Thing worthy of Praise and Admiration: An honest Meaning is the only Commen­dation it pretends to; which will more effectually re­commend it to every honest Man, than the greatest Ap­pearance of Learning and Penetration, without this.— Not doubting therefore but that I am writing to a Gen­tleman highly deserving of this Character, to one who with an honest Heart seeks to know the Truth as it is in JESUS; and is not knowingly and willingly under the Influence of any Prejudice or partial Inclination; I pro­ceed without further Ceremony to acquaint you, That I have with the utmost Application, Seriousness and Candor I am capable of, read and considered, the Rev. Mr. Emlyn's Inquiry into the Scripture Account of JESUS CHRIST; which you have been pleased to dedicate, To the Reverend the Clergy of all Denominations in New-Eng­land.— I forbear all Remarks upon your Dedication, and the grand Motive which induc'd you to procure a New-Impression of this Inquiry in New-England, 'till I have laid before you my Observations upon the Inquiry itself, [Page 3] which I shall confine to as small a Compass as I possibly can; and be so particular as to omit nothing of your Author's Reasonings that can be tho't to have any Weight in it; and then perhaps such Remarks will appear more just and reasonable than they might do here.

I BEGIN with your Author's first Chapter, where he proposes two Things in order to maintain the Subordina­tion of Jesus Christ, or his Inequality to God the Father.

I. "THAT the Term God is used in Scripture in dif­ferent "Senses, supreme and subordinate.

II. ‘THAT our Lord Jesus speaks of another as God, distinct from himself, and owns this God to be above or ever him.’

UPON the First of these I would only observe, what I suppose your Author intends by it; which is, that Jesus Christ may be called a God in Scripture, and yet not be the supreme God: A Point never yet denied by any who have read the Scriptures.—But it is inquired, whether Jesus Christ is not stiled God in such a Manner, and un­der such Circumstances, as plainly denote him to be God supreme? He is in Scripture stiled, The Mighty God, ^a— Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. ^b—It is affirmed by St. John, that the Word, i. e. Jesus Christ, was God. ^c—And the Apostle says, God was manifest in the Flesh, ^d meaning Jesus Christ.—St. Paul tells us, He is over all, God blessed for evermore. ^e—And St. John, that Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal Life, ^f &c.— Now it is inquir'd, Whether Jesus Christ is not here stiled God in such a Manner, and under such Circumstances, as plainly denote him to be God supreme?—Your Author allows him to be Lord of Lords (indefinitely) but ima­gines, that notes an inferior Character, compar'd with that of God of Gods—and refers us to 1 Cor. 8.5. for a [Page 4] Proof of it:—But how it appears from hence that Jesus Christ is not God, I must confess is more than I can see; since we may with equal Propriety thence infer, that the one God is no Lord, as that the one Lord is not God.— If it be said that the Term God implies Lord also, but not the contrary; I answer, it by no means follows that Lord of Lords, does not imply God also, but that it does; since God is a Lord of Lords, i. e. Lord of all Lords, in­definitely, must therefore be God of all Gods; and if there be no Lord above Him, there is no God above Him, since every God is a Lord.—And in this Light the Words of Sir Isaac Newton, which your Author refers to, appear against him, (if fairly cited.) That great Man defines God from his Dominion; and observes, that consider'd as the Object of our Worship, he is a Lord in the most eminent Sense; and therefore should rather be defined from his Dominion than from his Perfections.—Whenever then we speak of God we consider him as Lord also.—Lord of Lords in­definitely must therefore imply God.—Though every Lord is not God, yet the Lord of Lords is God; this implies the most extensive Dominion; and if, according to Sir Isaac, we are to define God from his Dominion, what more concise and proper Definition can be given of Him than that of Lord of Lords?—If God is to be de­fined from his Dominion, what more noble or just Descrip­tion can be given of Him than the Apostle gives of Jesus Christ, that he is the blessed and only Potentate; the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, &c.? I might add, that Sir Isaac was of Opinion, that from true Dominion, it follows that God is living, intelligent and powerful; and therefore as the Apostle attributes the most extensive Dominion to Jesus Christ, so we may thence infer that he is living, intelligent and powerful in the most emi­nent Sense, i. e. that he is God of Gods, or God su­preme: —But perhaps some Men will rather chuse to consider Sir Isaac, when he talks at this rate, as a [Page 5] Philosopher than a Divine; for were this allowed it would be of itself a compleat Answer to your Author as he final­ly states the Question, ‘Has Jesus Christ any God over him, who has greater Authority and greater Ability than himself or not?’ certainly not; for the Apostle evidently attributes the most extensive Authority or Dominion to him; he stiles him the only Potentate—the Lord of Lords; and Power or Ability (according to Sir Isaac) follow from true Dominion: None therefore has greater Ability than he, who has the greatest and most extensive Dominion.

BUT not to pursue this too far—I proceed to observe upon Sect. II.—Your Author having stated the Question, ‘Has Jesus Christ any God over him, who has greater Authority and greater Ability than himself or not?’ proposes hence to demonstrate the Affirmative, by shew­ing, First, that ‘Jesus Christ expresly speaks of another God than himself.’—Secondly, That ‘he acknowledges this God to be above or over himself;’—And lastly, That ‘he wants those supereminent and infinite Perfec­tions which belong only to the Lord God of Gods.’—

FOR the first of these, he refers us to Mat. 27.46, where our Saviour cry'd out upon the Cross, My God, my God, &c.; and to John 20.17, where after his Re­surrection he sent to his Disciples, (by the Women who first saw him,) saying, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God—Here I would observe, That those who oppose your Author, consider Jesus Christ as Man when thus praying to and speaking of God; that tho' the divine and humane Natures were u­nited in his Person, yet that the humane only pray'd and complain'd to God, &c. and therefore that such Passages are no Evidence that he is not truly God supreme.—And it must be confess'd that if there be any just Grounds for such an Interpretation, it entirely destroys the Force of such Passages to prove any thing in Favour of your Au­thor's [Page 6] Opinion:—And the plain intelligible Reason to be assign'd for this Interpretation is, that he is frequently stiled God in such a Manner, and under such Circumstan­ces, and such Things are predicated of him, and attribu­ted to him, as more plainly denote him to be the supreme God, than the Texts your Author refers to denote the contrary. Some of these I have already mentioned, as, that he is stiled the mighty God, Emmanuel, God blessed forevermore, the true God, &c. without any Limitation or Restriction, and in like Manner infinite, unlimited Knowledge is attributed to him: ^g—And the Knowledge of Men's Hearts: ^h—And he tells us, That he is Alpha and Omega; the beginning and the ending;—HE, which is, which was, and which is to come; the Almighty ⁱ—that He and the Father are One—that what things soever the Fa­ther doth, those doth the Son likewise—that as the Father raiseth up the Dead and quickneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. ^k — And many other things are predicated of him, which can belong only to God almigh­ty:—Not only Men, but Angels, are commanded to worship him: ^l—And his Dominion and Authority are esta­blished forever, ^m &c. Now we must either suppose these Representations and Descriptions of Jesus Christ to be false and groundless; or that those Texts which (if literally understood of his Person) represent him inferior to God, are to be interpreted in the Manner mentioned, viz. of his human Nature only, and not of his Person, which is di­vine: — For it is agreed on all Sides, that those Texts (which if literally understood of his Person) represent Je­sus Christ as God, and those which represent him as in­ferior to God, equally belong to the Canon of holy Scrip­ture—The Question is, Which we are to understand in their literal and most obvious Sense; those which repre­sent him as God and equal to the Father, or those which [Page 7] represent him as subordinate and inferior? for both these cannot be understood literally, or of his Person:—But ei­ther those which represent him as inferior to God, must be understood of his human Nature only, or those which re­present him as God, must be understood of his Office.— The former of these I humbly think the most reasonable, viz. that those Texts which represent Jesus Christ as in­ferior to God, are to be understood of his human Nature only, and not of his Person, which is divine; and that those which represent him as God, are to be literally un­derstood of his Person, that he is the true God, God blessed, &c. My Reasons for which are these,

1 ^st THAT there is no Propriety in describing Christ as to his Office by calling him God, according to the com­mon and ordinary use of that Term in Scripture, and the general Acceptation of it among Men. The Term God is used and generally understood to denote that infinite, eternal, self-existent Being who created and preserves all Things; and if, with Sir Isaac Newton, we define God from his Dominion, still the Term (when accompanied by no Restriction or Limitation) denotes one that has true, universal, underived and everlasting Dominion; such as is attributed to Christ, Thy Throne, O God, is forever: And which can belong only to God supreme—So that it amounts to just the same, whether we define God from his Perfections or from his Dominion; still its a very improper and uncommon Use of Language to describe Jesus Christ as to his Office by the Term God, without any Restriction or Limitation; and much more so still to describe him as to his Office, by attributing that to him which belongs only to the supreme God. But

2 ^dly THERE is not the least Intimation where Jesus Christ is stiled God, either in the Texts themselves, or in what preceeds or follows, that this is to be understood of his Office, and not of his Person.—Where Magistrates are stiled Gods, the very next Words explain it, and tell us [Page 8] what we are to understand by it: And in like manner, where Moses and Angels are called Gods, no one, who at­tends to the whole Discourse, could easily mistake the Meaning, or not see that the Term God was there used in an inferior and metaphorical Sense. But there is no Foundation for this where Christ is stiled the true God— God blessed forevermore — God whose Throne is establish­ed forever, &c. Here is no Room to suspect that the Term God is used in an uncommon or improper Sense, or that it denotes any other than that Jesus Christ is actu­ally that true God, God blessed, &c. he is said to be. Much less is there Room for any such Construction where that is attributed to Christ which belongs to the supreme God alone: I mean infinite Knowledge, eternal Self-ex­istence, religious Worship and Homage, &c. which I shall shew to be distinctly attributed to him, in another Place.—

I proceed to observe,

3 ^dly That from what has been said, it appears there is the utmost Danger, that such Descriptions (if they are to be understood of the Office of Christ only) will give Men wrong Conceptions of him: They naturally lead us to look upon him as the true God, and to adore and worship him as such.—And surely that God who is jealous of his own Honour, and will not give his Glory to another, i. e. will suffer none to receive the Homage and Worship which is due to him, nor give his Creatures any just Oc­casion to look upon any other as God besides himself; HE, I say, would never have represented Jesus Christ as God, if he was not truly such: He never would have laid such a Snare for us, such a Temptation before us, to esteem and honour one as God, who is no God.—If it be said, That this Plea holds equally good on the other side of the Question, and that there is as great Danger of our contracting too low an Opinion of the Lord Jesus (if he is truly God) from those Scriptures which represent [Page 9] him inferior to God, as the contrary. I answer, That the manifest Danger of Deception here is by no means equal;

First, BECAUSE the Design of our Saviour's coming into the World, and the Miracles which he wrought while manifest in the Flesh, were such as naturally tended to give Mankind (I mean such as believ'd him to be the Christ) high and adoring Thoughts of him, and such as would lead them to Reverence and Worship him as God, and to give that Honour and Glory to him which is due to God alone; and indeed this Disposition appear'd in those who knew Jesus to be the Christ as soon as he was born. ⁿ—And while he was manifest in the Flesh he fre­quently receiv'd Worship and Homage from those who were convinced that he was the Christ—From the Wo­man of Samaria, ^o from the Leper, ^p from a certain Ruler, who was a God by Office, ^q from the whole Ship's Crew, ^r &c.—Those who saw his Miracles, and believed on him as the Christ, were ever disposed to worship, reverence and exalt him. If it be said, that they worshiped him be­cause they thought him more than a mere Man, even a God—this will favour the Interpretation I maintain, that he is truly God; since he never forbid them or told them to worship God and not him; that he was their fellow-Servant, and the like; as the Apostles constantly did, when such Worship was offered to them ^s: This I think truly observable, that our Lord Jesus never in the lest suppress'd or discouraged this Disposition in People to reverence and worship him: And if he is not God supreme, it is to me something unaccountable; since I have ever thought Him to be the only proper Object of religious Worship; and that to attribute it to any Creature was Blasphemy, a rob­bing God of his Honor.—But if it should be said, that this was not properly religious Worship (which I shall here­after shew in other Instances is plainly attributed to Christ) [Page 10] but a Reverence and Respect they paid him as a superior dignified Creature; yet this is sufficient for my present Purpose, to shew that those who believ'd him to be the Christ, knew the Design of his Coming, and saw his Mi­racles, had very high and adoring Thoughts of him; which led them to pay him, at least, the greatest Reve­rence and Respect that can be due to a mere Creature: This your Author observes Pag. 52. (tho' with a different Design) is the Case with Mankind since the Apostle's Days, and the shutting up of Prophesy: Those who esteem Jesus Christ as the Saviour of Sinners, are disposed to think and speak very highly of him; and consequently will much more readily embrace, and easily believe, the Description which represents Him as the true God, God blessed forever, &c. than that which represents him as a mere Man, inferior and subordinate to God, provided these Descriptions are founded upon equal Authority, as is the present Case:—So that for this Reason 'tis plain there is greater Danger of our being deceived by those Texts which represent Christ as the true God, &c, if he is not God; than by those which represent him as inferior to God, if he is God: This is on Supposition that he is as expressly, as clearly, and in as unlimited a Manner re­presented to be inferior to God, by one Part of sacred Writ, as he is to be God by another Part; which I hum­bly think is not the Case; for

Secondly, To put the two Descriptions or Representa­tions of Jesus Christ upon an exact parallel, the Question must be, Whether he is God or Man? But this is not the Question in debate; it being agreed on both Sides, that he is truly Man; at least, that he was so far a Man when manifest in the Flesh, as to be subject to all our common Wants, Pains and sinless Infirmities: — But the Question which arises is, Whether he was a mere Man, or God-man? Whether he was a mere human Person? or, Whether the divine and human Natures were both united in his [Page 11] Person? and, Whether he is more plainly represented in Scripture as God-Man than as a mere Man? And in this View of the Question, I think there is scarce Room to doubt but that Description of Christ, which represents him as God, is most obvious and clear, and has vastly the Ad­vantage of the other, which represents him as Man and inferior to God: This will appear plain if we consider that those Texts which represent him as Man, and inferior to God, may be literally understood of his Manhood, or human Nature, and not contradict those which represent him as God: But the contrary will not hold true, that those which represent him as God, may be literally under­stood, if we understand the other of his whole Person: And it's an establish'd Maxim, never to put a figurative Interpretation upon Scripture, where the most obvious literal Interpretation is true and consistent; and if this be true, if this be the surest and most natural Way of inter­preting Scripture, it follows that we should understand those Texts, which represent Christ as the true God, li­terally of his Person; and those which represent him as Man and inferior to God, literally of his human Nature, or Manhood only. Upon the whole then; I think it ap­pears that was a Man, destitute of all Prejudice and Pre­possession, who esteemed Jesus Christ as the Saviour of lost Sinners, to read the Bible, and consider those Scriptures which represent him to be truly God, and those which your Author thinks represent him as inferior to God; he would be most likely to understand the former literally of his Person, and the other of his human Nature only; and consequently the Danger of Deception from those Texts, which represent Jesus Christ as God, is greater, if he be not God, than the contrary: We must therefore, to vindicate the Goodness of that God of Truth, by whose Inspiration the Scriptures were given, in not laying a Snare for us, or a Temptation before us, to give that Ho­nour and Worship to another which is due to Himself a­lone; [Page 12] I say, in order to this, we must suppose that Jesus Christ is truly God, and that it's his holy Will that all Men should honour the Son even as they honour the Fa­ther: He gave us the Scriptures to profit us, and not to puzzle, ensnare and confound us:—They are for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteous­ness; that the Man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good Works, 2 Tim. 3.16, 17, — and not for Riddles, for Deceptions, or Sophisms, that the Man of Sin may be furnished with Ways and Methods to evade the Truth, and maintain Falsehood and Unrighte­ousness. We must therefore, if we consult the Nature and Design of the Scriptures, conclude, that the most ob­vious and literal Interpretation, when consistent with Rea­son and common Sense, and the Scriptures in general, is to be preferr'd to any forced or figurative one whate­ver: And if so, then the Interpretation which we put up­on those Scriptures, which represent Christ as inferior to God, viz. that they are to be understood of his Manhood, or human Nature only, is to be preferred to your Author's Interpretation, which supposes the most explicit, unlimit­ed Assertions of the supreme Deity of Jesus Christ, and his Equality to God, even the Father, are to be under­stood of his Office, and not of his Person: That he is the mighty God, the true God, God blessed forevermore, God, whose Throne is established forever, by Office only; that Men and Angels are commanded to worship him; that eternal Existence, infinite Knowledge, immense Pre­sence, &c. are attributed to him, only on Account of his Office, and not for any personal inherent Perfections he is possessed of essentially and independently. Your Au­thor indeed attempts very largely to shew the Absurdity of this Interpretation; and that there is no such Founda­tion for it as I here suppose; and his Reasoning upon this Head I shall distinctly consider:—I would only observe, at present, that in Case I shew the Vanity and Sophistry [Page 13] of his Objections, and maintain my Interpretation against them; the Consequence will be, that his Arguments to prove the Inferiority, or Subordination, of Jesus Christ to God the Father, or that he is not truly God, are of no Force: If my Interpretation be just, it is an easy, plain Solution of all those Texts of Scripture which seem to re­present Christ as inferior to the Father:—Thus when he cries, My God, my God; and I ascend to my God; it is the human Nature that speaks, and is spoken of; it is the human Nature that is distinguished from, and oppo­sed to the Father, or to God, including the whole God-head; so he is inferior to the Father, or the Father is greater than he, i. e. than he, considered as Man, and as Mediator; it being an Act of the greatest Condescension in him to become such; but not as to his Person and Essence, with regard to which, the Son is true God, God blessed for evermore;—so, the Father hath put all Things under him, as Man or Mediator, himself being excepted; for as God, he could receive no such Dominion and Authority; and when all Things are subdued to him, as Man or Mediator, then, as such, he shall be subject to God, who hath put all Things under him, that God may be all in all, that God may be the Head of the Mediator, the Mediator the Head of the Church, and the Church by him victori­ous over the last Enemy DEATH, and triumphant in Glory; so that, as God, his Throne is established forever, and his Kingdom shall have no end. This is a plain and easy Solution of your Author's irresistable Text 1 Cor. 15. 24, to 29. And had he took in the two preceeding Ver­ses, it would have carried its own Confutation with it; it being very evident from thence that the Apostle is speaking of Christ as Man: he tells us, Verse 22 ^d, that as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made a­live, i. e. all Men shall be made alive in Christ; all the Dead shall attain to the Resurrection by him: Some shall arise to everlasting Life, and some to Shame and everlasting [Page 14] Contempt: He then proceeds to tell us, Verse 23, in what Order they shall rise,— But every Man in his own Order, Christ the first Fruits—certainly he means the Man Christ; and in this Character he discourses of him in the following Verses, as the first-Fruits from the Dead; but I think it renders the Apostle very unintelligible, to suppose that he speaks of Christ exactly in this Light, in Ver. 22, where he says, All shall be made alive in him: All who? All Men:—In what Order? The Man Christ the first:— What! Christ be made alive in Christ? — Surely, the Christ that is the first-Fruits, that is made alive from the Dead, is not exactly the Christ, in all Respects, by or in whom all are made alive: If it be said, that Christ is not the Agent, but the Cause of the Resurrection; the Dif­ficulty is no Ways removed, since his own Resurrection is included with that of other Men: And of this Man Christ, that is the first-Fruits from the Dead, the Apostle discourses in the following Verses, tells us, that he must reign till all Enemies are put under his Feet; that the last Enemy is Death; that God is excepted out of those Things which are put under him; that when all Things are subdued to him, then he himself, this Man Christ, the first Fruits from the Dead, shall be subject to God, who put all Things under him, that God may be all in all.—So that if we take the Apostle's whole Discourse, there is evidently just Ground to understand the Words your Author refers to, of the human Nature of Christ that was made alive, Verse 23, and not of his Person, in or by whom, that, and all other Men shall he made alive, Verse 22.—As Man, or consi­der'd as the first Fruits from the Dead, he shall be subject to God, who put all Things under him; and as such he is dependent upon God; but consider'd Personally, he is God, whose Throne is for ever and ever, Hebrews 1.8. But, says your Author, the very next Verse explains this a different Way; where 'tis said, therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee above thy Fellows; intimating, that [Page 15] when consider'd as God, whose Throne is for ever and ever, he had a God over him, and is himself a God only by Delegation or Exaltation: But how can we understand the Words in this Sense, if his Exaltation is so soon to end as your Author supposes? Thy Throne, O God, is for­ever and ever — But, Thy Throne, O God, shall be overthrown at the End of the World; Nay, thô thou art he, (as in Verses 10, 11.) who in the Beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth; thô the Heavens are the Works of thine Hands; yea, thô thou shall remain when they are perish'd, thô thou art the same when they are changed;— yet, they shall no sooner perish, be folded up, and changed, than thy Authority and Dominion shall cease, and thy Exaltation be at an end: This is evidently the Language your Author makes the Apostle speak, when he considers him as speaking personally of Christ in Verse 9, therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee above thy Fellows; and as this is chargeable with the last Degree of Absurdity, I humbly think we are to under­stand them of his human Nature: That God hath anoint­ed the Man Christ with the Oil of Gladness above his Fel­lows, his Fellow-Creatures, as a Reward for his Love to Righteousness and hatred of Iniquity; but that Christ, consider'd Personally, is God, whose Throne is for ever and ever; who laid the Foundation of the Earth, and built the Heavens; and who shall remain, and be the same when they are perish'd and changed.

AND the same easy and natural Interpretation of Scrip­ture which has hitherto shewn the Fallacy of your Author's Reasoning, entirely destroys the Force of his Arguments in Chap. II. Thus when our Lord Jesus says, Of myself I can do nothing, John 5.30; if he spoke this with Re­gard to his Power of Doing or Acting, it is to be under­stood of his Manhood, or human Nature only, the Power of which (as of all other created Beings) was derived from and dependent upon God—But I rather chuse to [Page 16] think our Saviour spake this with regard to his Will; in­tending by it, that he had no private Will opposite to, or separate from the Father's Will—My Reason for this is, that he declares Verse 19, that what Things soever the Father doth, those also doth the Son likewise; and Ver. 21, that as the Father raiseth up the Dead, and quickeneth them; even so the SON quickeneth whom HE will. Here seems to be no want of Power in the Son; he has as great Power as the Father, but their Will is one, he can do nothing of his own Will seperate from the Father's; for whatever the Father does, that also does the Son likewise— They are one in Essence and one in Will, as appears beyond all Contradiction from Ver. 23. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father; and how can this be true, unless the Father and Son are essentially one? And this his Oneness with the Father he again represents in the plainest Manner, Chap. 14.9, 10. He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father: I am in the Father; and the Father in me—and intimates Ver. 11, that his Works were enough to convince Men that he was one in Essence with the Father, they being such as none but the great God could atchieve — Believe me for the very Works sake—believe what? Certainly what he had just asserted— He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father—I am in the Father, and the Father in me. And your Author's Supposition, that ‘our Lord considers himself (personally) in Opposition to the Father,’ Chap. V, is certainly groundless; at least there is no Weight in the Reason he assigns for it, viz. ‘Because he says the Father had given him all Power or Authority to execute Judgment;’—for our Lord tells us in what Character the Father gave him this Au­thority, and what Capacity he received it, viz, as the Son of Man.—He had asserted in Ver. 21, that as the Father, so He quickened whom he pleased; and Ver. 23. that he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father; and Ver. 26, that as the Father had Life in himself, so [Page 17] he had given to the Son to have Life in himself; (indepen­dent Life, surely, or else he had given him no more than he has the whole animal, yea the vegetable Creation:)— After our Lord had asserted these Things, He proceeds to tell us, that the Father had given him Authority to execute Judgment also; he adds (least any should think there was a Contradiction or Inconsistency in his Discourse, in his having equal Power with the Father to raise the Dead, &c. and receiving Power from the Father to execute Judg­ment; I say, that there might be no Room for this, he adds) why, and in what Capacity he received this Autho­rity from the Father, viz. because he was the Son of Man — therefore the Father gave, and he received Authority to execute Judgment.—But in some other Nature or Ca­pacity, he had equal Power with the Father, to quicken whomsoever he would — had Life in himself — was One with the Father—And what could this be, but the divine? what but true God? — It is surprizing to me, that your Author could read these Chapters of St. John's Gospel, and pick out those Scraps which he brings to support his Cause, without being convicted and confounded by the surrounding Context, which asserts our Saviour's supreme Deity and Godhead in almost every Verse.

I proceed to your Author's

2 ^d Instance; wherein he thinks our Lord Jesus dis­claimed a Perfection which belongs only to the supreme God, viz. That of absolute Goodness—which he grounds upon Matth. 19.17. Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.— Your Author af­firms it to be evident, that Christ here distinguishes him­self from God, and denies of himself what he affirms of God.— And even were this the Case, the Interpretation I have hitherto maintained is a natural and easy Solution, viz. That he distinguishes his human Nature from God, and denies of that only what he affirms of God.— But for my Part, I can see no Grounds for your Author's [Page 18] Method of interpreting this Text.— I think all must al­low that the Truth of his Interpretation entirely depends upon the Opinion which the young Man had of Christ, who received this Answer from him. — And this I am ready to think very difficult exactly to determine: How­ever there is evidently the greatest Probability, that he did not look upon him to be God: And if so, then the Answer he received from Christ, may be very fairly under­stood as a Check or Reproof upon him, for attributing that to Christ, while he thought him a mere Man, which belongs to God only; — for as a Man thinketh in his Heart, so is he;— and therefore the young Man was re­proveable for attributing that to him, which belonged not to him in the Character or Capacity he viewed him in; tho' it justly belonged to him in his real personal Cha­racter: —This is undeniable.—And now I humbly think, it most probable, that the young Man did not look up­on our Saviour to be God,

First, Because the prevailing Opinion among the Pha­risees and Jews in general at that Day, concerning the Messiah was, not that he should be God manifest in the Flesh, but a mere Son of David, a temporal Prince and Saviour; and if the young Man tho't him to be the Messiah, yet that his Opinion of him, was agreeable to the common Pharisaical Notion of the Messiah, is altogether probable; since he was one from among the Multitude; and there is not the least Intimation that he thought dif­ferently of Christ, from what the Rest tho't of the Me­ssiah in general. Nothing can be infer'd concerning his Opinion of him, from the Question he asks him, more than this, That he thought him, as Nicodemus did, A Teacher come from God; or one able to instruct him.

And,

Secondly. WHAT very much confirms it, that he did not take our Saviour to be God, is his Conduct after he had received Instructions from him, — He went away [Page 19] sorrowful.—What! That he had been instructed Immedi­ately from the Mouth of God?—No; That the Instructi­ons were so opposite to his darling Lust: But would any Man who had Reason and sober Thought enough to frame an Opinion any Way, if he verily believed that the great God immediately enjoined a Thing upon him, dare to neglect it? Or, would a Man thus believingly taught from God's own Mouth, go away sorrowful, that he must deny himself one Thing to please this God? No verily; a Man that would act at this Rate, must be a­bandoned to the greatest Degree of Hardness and Stupi­dity: But the Character of this young Man is very dif­ferently represented: He had kept, at least externally, the second Table of the moral Law from his Youth; was inquisitive what he should do to be saved; yea, he was a Youth of so much Innocence and Vertue, that our Saviour loved him: In short, He lacked but one Thing to make him a good and perfect Man in the Sense of Scripture; and surely he would not have lacked this one Thing, had he verily believed the great God from his own Mouth recommended it to him.

Besides,

Thirdly, IF our Saviour knew the young Man tho't him to be God, and was conscious to himself at the same Time that he was not God, (as your Author supposes) I say, if this be the Case, it's difficult to assign a Reason for his answering him in this Manner; Why dost thou call me good? there is none good but One, that is God.— This implies only an Inquiry why he called him Good; i. e. upon what Account; and not a Denial that he was Good: He affirms that none is good but God; but this is not denying himself to be God.— Had he designed such a Thing, if his Manner of Expression is not alto­gether unintelligible, it's evidently very liable to be mis­understood, and but little favours such a Design.— Had he design'd to have cured the young Man of a Mistake, [Page 20] in thinking him God when he was not, would he not rather have plainly told him, I am not God; or you are wrong in calling me Good?— But on the other Side, It is easy to assign a Reason why our Saviour did not more fully declare his God-head to this young Man.— The captious designing Pharisees were about him, seek­ing Occasion and Opportunity to accuse him; but as His Time was not yet come, he was careful to give them none, that their Ignorance, Ill-nature and Prejudice could possibly improve against him at that Time. But what Improvement they would have made of it, had he asserted himself to be God, we may learn from the Account given of his Accusation and Tryal, Matth. 26. and Luke 22. When he intimated before the Sanhedrim, that he was the Son of God, the general Cry was, What need we any further Witnesses? for we our selves have heard of his own Mouth. And, John 5.18. The Jews sought the more to kill him, because he said, that God was his Father; making himself equal with God, as they interpreted it: And our Saviour is so far from denying absolutely that their Interpretation was right, that he im­mediately asserts his Oneness with the Father; tho' in such a Manner as to prevent their making an immediate Improvement of it against him:—He says, What Things soever the Father doth, these also doth the Son likewise. From hence it appears, that our Saviour carefully avoided such Expressions as that even the Pharisees themselves could judge sufficient to accuse and condemn him by, till his Time or Hour was come; and therefore thought not proper to assert his Divinity, or God-head, in plain, ex­plicit Terms to the World; not even till He was decla­red to be the Son of God with Power, by a Resurrection from the Dead. — And this, if I mistake not, lets us into the Foundation and Design of that Charge our Sa­viour gave his Disciples, Matth, 16.16. and Luke 9.22. When Peter, (speaking the Sentiments of the other Dis­ciples,) [Page 21] declared him to be Christ the Son of God; i. e. God by Nature, and not merely by Office and Delegation: He strictly charged and commanded them, that they should tell no Man that Thing: But why? What is the Reason of this Charge? HE adds, Because the Son of Man, (not the Son of God most properly and by Way of Eminence so called,) must suffer many Things, and be re­jected of the Elders and chief Priests and Scribes:—Intend­ing certainly, that it was inconsistent with the Purposes of infinite Wisdom, and his then present State of Humilia­tion and approaching Sufferings, that HE should be pub­lickly preached and proclaimed to be what He really was, and what his own Disciples thought Him to be: — And no wonder; when he gave his Disciples such a Charge not to proclaim the Dignity of his Person, and his real Character, till after his Sufferings, that he should de­cline doing it himself.

UPON the whole then; From what has been said, it appears (if not very plain yet) most probable, that the young Man did not look upon Christ to be God: — That our Saviour's Answer, Why dost thou call me Good? &c, is to be understood as a Check, or Reproof, upon the young Man, not for his Words simply considered; but for his applying them to Christ, while he entertained his then present Opinion of him: I say, that his Answer is to be understood in this Light; and not as a Denial of his own Goodness or Deity, since the Words do not plainly express any such Denial: And no Reason can be offered why our Saviour should not plainly express it, if this was his Design: But on the other Hand, that there is good Reason why he did not absolutely assert and publickly declare his Divinity at that Time; such a Declaration be­ing inconsistent with the Purposes of infinite Wisdom, the State of Humiliation he was in, and the Scene of Suffer­ings he had to pass thro'. — So that if we are to judge according to the greatest Degree of Evidence and pro­bable [Page 22] Testimony, we must judge that there is no suffi­cient Ground for your Author's Interpretation of our Saviour's Answer to the young Man. —

I proceed to the

3 ^d and last Instance, wherein your Author supposes our Lord disclaimed a Perfection which belongs to the su­preme God, viz. Mark 13.32. Of that Day knows no Man; no, not the Angels of Heaven; nor the Son; but the Father. — This I look upon to be the most plau­sible Argument in favour of your Author's Opinion. As to the other Instances he produces, if we consider their obvious Circumstances, and the general Current of Scrip­ture, they are no Ways to his Purpose;— and even this is fairly over-balanced by other Scriptures, which affirm in the most positive, unlimited Manner, that He knows all Things;—that He searcheth the Reins and the Hearts, &c.— For this is not a positive Assertion that he did not, personally considered, know the Day and Hour; — but, of that Day and Hour knoweth no Man; no not the Angels; nor the Son, i. e. the Son of Man, or the human Nature: He did not then know it, considered as the Pro­phet and Teacher of Mankind: It was what he could not then reveal in this Character; it being kept as an invio­ble Secret from all created Beings; what no ways con­cerned them to know; yea, the Knowledge of which would be dangerous and hurtful, for the Reason assigned: For this bring kept such a Secret is, that All might Watch: A Duty that would in a great Measure be superseded by a Revelation of that Day and Hour: Therefore, of that Day and Hour must no Man know; no, not the Angels; — nor the Son, considered as Man; or the Prophet and Teacher of Mankind: This I think a plain and natural Solution of these Words, in consideration of the Circum­stances attending them, and those other Scriptures, which positively affirm, that our Lord Jesus knows All Things; that He searcheth the Heart, &c. — That they are to be [Page 23] understood of Him considered as Man, or the Prophet and Teacher of Mankind, and not Personally. — I have therefore nothing to do now in order to maintain my Cause, but to remove your Author's Objections against this Interpretation, and the Arguments I have brought to support it. And this I shall attempt to do in a brief and familiar Manner, tho' your Author has dwelt very largely upon it; conscious, that his whole Hypothesis was depending, and must inevitably fall if he failed in this Point.

HE therefore obejects;

Obj. 1 ^st, ‘THAT our blessed Lord Jesus, if himself was the supreme God in any Nature of his own, could not have said such Things in any Consistency with Truth and Sincerity:—He could not say Himself could not do, and did not know, the Things, which, if he were God supreme, he could do, and did know, &c.’ — As to the first of these, viz. "Our Saviour's say­ing, that He could do nothing of himself," I have already shewn it evident from the Context, that it's to be under­stood of his Will; that he had no private Will of his own, separate from the Father's; and not of his Power: For, What Things soever the Father doth, those doth the Son; and, as the Father quickeneth whom He will, so doth the Son.— And, as to the second, He does not positively deny his knowing the Day, &c, Personally con­sidered; but considered as Man; or in the Character of our Prophet and Teacher.— So that the Question is plainly this, viz. Whether our Lord Jesus, if the divine and human Natures were united in his Person, could not affirm, that he did not know that as Man, or considered as our Teacher, which he did know, as GOD, con­sistent with Truth; and this, without any express Li­mitation or Reserve?— In order to determine this; the Time, Manner and Circumstances of his speaking, must be considered: For it must be allowed, That at one Time, [Page 24] and under certain Circumstances, a Reserve or Limi­tation may be necessary to render a Speech consistent with Truth; when at another Time, and under dif­ferent Circumstances, the same Speech may be equally true, without any such Reserve or Limitation's being expressed. — This might be illustrated, were it neces­sary, by various Examples. — The Truth and Con­sistency of a particular Speech or Sentence often depends upon the Circumstances of the Time; the Knowledge of the Hearers; or the preceeding or following Discourse of the Speaker: For it's no Argument, that a Man speaks inconsistent with Truth, because we misunderstand him; or because what he says is not true in the Light we con­sider it: If so, every Man must be a Liar that has the Misfortune to be misunderstood; and at this Rate, per­haps, some would make our blessed Saviour as great a Liar as the Father of Lies himself. — Now to ap­ply this to the present Case in the most familiar Manner: — If the Disciples understood him to speak of his hu­man Nature, or of himself considered as the Prophet and Teacher of Mankind, and not of himself personally, when he said, that the Son did not know the Day and the Hour; then with regard to them, his Speech or Saying was con­sistent with Truth: He did not deceive them; but what he said in the Sense he intended it, and in the Sense they understood it, might be strictly true, tho' the Son in another Nature, or Character, did actually know, what is here said he did not know.—And if from what is revealed to us concerning our blessed Saviour, we have sufficient Reason to conclude, that this of his not knowing the Day, is to be understood of him considered as Man, or as our Prophet and Teacher, and not Personally; then we have no Reason to complain or object, that what he says is inconsistent with Truth and Sincerity: And that we have no sufficient Reason to suppose this, your Author has not yet proved; and to infer it from the Speech or Sentence [Page 25] itself, singly considered, is absurd; since it's being consistent or inconsistent with Truth and Sincerity depends upon the Circumstances of the Time at which it was delivered; upon our Saviour's whole Discourse with his Disciples; and upon their Knowledge or Notion of what he said: I say, it depended upon all these with regard to them: And with regard to us, it depends upon the whole Record God hath given of his Son. If he has not sufficiently revealed to us, that this is to be understood of his human Nature only; but of him Personally considered; then it is true, that supposing him to be GOD, is making him speak in­consistent with Truth. But while he has revealed to us, that it is to be understood of him considered as Man, or our Teacher only, and not of him Personally, the above Supposition implies no Contradiction or Inconsistency, with the strictest Truth and Sincerity.— He that hath told us, the Son did not know, &c, hath also told us, what we are to understand by the Son, when this Know­ledge is denied of him, viz. That we are to consider him as Man, as our Prophet and Teacher, and not in his divine Nature, as truly God; tho' He is to be thus considered, when 'tis said, He knows All Things; the Hearts of Men, &c.— This indeed is not delivered to us in the same Words and Terms I have used; but it is plainly taught in that Record God hath given of his Son; at least your Author has not shewn, that this is not revealed to us by the same Scriptures that tell us, The Son knows not the Day, &c. So that tho' our Sa­viour did not make an immediate express Reserve when he said, The Son did not know the Day; yet it amounts to just the same, if the Disciples understood him with this Limitation; and if the Scriptures, which give us an Account of him, teach us to understand those Words in this limited Sense, it is the same Case: We have as little Reason to complain and object, that his saying, The Son did not know, &c. is inconsistent with Truth, if he [Page 26] be GOD, as if he had immediately added, You are to un­derstand this of me as Man; I speak it of the Son considered as the Prophet and Teacher of Mankind, or the like.— Would it not be a very unreasonable Criticism, for any one to take a single Sentence of a Discourse delivered from the Pulpit, or at the Bar, a Sentence that depended upon what preceeded or followed for its true Sense, or for the Meaning which the Speaker intended, being explained and limited to certain Bounds; I say, would it not be barbarous and unreasonable to select such a Sentence; and declare, that because when understood in it's utmost possible Latitude, in a Sense very different from what the Speaker intend­ed, it was inconsistent with Truth, therefore it was really so in every Sense, and cannot be reconciled with the Truth and Sincerity of the Speaker; but is to be decla­red an absolute Falshood? Just so barbarous and unrea­sonable is it for your Author to select this single Sentence of our blessed Saviour and declare, That it is not true of the Son, considered in the Light or Character in which he spake of him; in which his Disciples understood him; and in which the holy Scriptures teach us to understand him; because it is not true of the SON considered in his utmost Latitude, if he be GOD. — This may be further illustrated by the very Instances your Author brings to support his Objection: Tho' there is a wide Difference between two Arms, or two Eyes, belonging to one Man, and two infinite distant Natures being united in one Per­son; the Cases are too unlike and unparrallel to prove any Thing of each other, and therefore are not to your Author's Purpose, in the Light he considers them; but may serve to illustrate what I have said.—Thus, supposing a Man to have two Eyes, the one vivid and piercing, by which he could discern minute Atoms and Objects at a great Distance; the other dull and short-sighted, affected only by near and shining Objects: Supposing this Man dis­coursing with me concerning the Sight of his poorest Eye; [Page 27] or, being asked by me, how far, and what Objects he could see; should answer, "I can see no farther than such a particular Object, and there are only such and such large and shining Objects that I can discern;" would this be inconsistent with Truth and Sincerity, because he could and did see farther and other Objects with his best Eye?—Or, if without any previous Discourse of the Matter, he should say, "I don't see such and such Things; there are certain Objects I don't discern:" But should add, that he meant by his dull short-sighted Eye; for with the other he could discern minute Atoms and Objects at a Distance: Could his first Assertion in this Case be justly deemed inconsistent with Truth, if the latter were true? Surely no; he intended no Falsehood; and I am not deceived: If I take and consider his whole Discourse together, it appears every Way consistent; and in short, it would argue great Ignorance, Prejudice or Ill-nature in me to object, that it was not true and con­sistent. — And now to apply this to the present Case.— Supposing our Lord Jesus to have two distinct Natures united in his Person, viz. the divine and human; the divine knows all Things, the human does not: The Disciples who are previously informed of this double Cha­racter, apply to him in the Character of Man; or inquire of him as their Prophet and Teacher; not as a divine Per­son, When the Day should be? He tells them, that he (or the Son) did not know; while the divine Nature or He, the Son, in a different Character, did know: Or without their previous Knowledge of his two Natures, and double Character, (if you chuse to have it so) he tells them, Of that Day the Son knows not: but adds, that he intended by Son, the Son of Man; or the Son considered as the Prophet and Teacher of Mankind; for that the Son, as God, or a divine Person, did know it. The first of these Assertions cannot be justly deemed in­consistent with Truth, because the latter is true. —And [Page 28] that the Disciples either thus understood our Lord at the very Time, or were thus instructed by him soon after, is evident; because they soon after attributed infinite un­limited Knowledge to Him: Lord, Thou knowest all Things.—And they are Examples for us; and we are to consider the whole Scriptures as one continued Discourse. When we judge of the Person, Offices or Religion of our blessed Saviour, we are to explain and interpret one Part with another, by the Exercise of the best Reason, with­out Prejudice or Partiality.—Thus it renewedly ap­pears, that your Author's Objection is groundless; till he first shews, that the Record God hath given of his Son no where affords us sufficient Grounds to conclude that the particular Sentence or Sentences in debate, are to be understood agreable to the above Interpretation.—I have dwelt the longer upon this Point, because your Author lays great Stress upon it; and indeed founds his other Ob­jections in great Measure upon the Supposition that this is just, true and unanswerable. Thus largely shewing the Vanity of this, will therefore open the Way, and vastly facilitate the Removal of the Rest.—I beg leave however to add, that your Author has laid aside the Subtilty or good Sense he seems in some other Places to be possessed of, when he makes such a horrid and obvious Abuse and Misapplication of Dr. Stillingfleet's Words, to prove his own Reasoning fair; and insinuates, "that some on the other Side own it, just when out of the Heat of this Controversy, and contending with the Papists." Was I a Friend to your Author's Opinion, or verily believed it reasonable and true, I should be truly grieved to see it vindicated by such a Quibble. — Is there any Room to compare a Popish Priest who falsely pretends to per­sonate God, to JESUS CHRIST, if he is really God? Or does it follow by any Parity of Reason, that because then Pretence is vain, that they know some Things as God, which they know not as Men; therefore our blessed [Page 29] Saviour, if the divine and human Nature were actually united in his Person, could not know any Thing as GOD, which he did not know as Man? Surely there is a wide Difference between falsely pretending to be God, and being really GOD; or else we may make God al­mighty himself an Impostor: And if here be a Difference, then your Author's Reasoning upon this Head, and Ap­plication of the Doctor's Words in his Favour is unjust and unreasonable. But I proceed to,

Obj. 2. viz. ‘That Jesus Christ intended no such Distinction of two Natures, because he puts not the Distinction or Opposition between the Son of Man, and the eternal Word, (as some speak,) but between the Son and his Father; not the Son knows, but only the Father. — Which is as much as to say, None knows but the Father, and the Son is in no Nature the Father; therefore the Son could not know in any Nature, &c.’ — I have not here used exactly your Author's Words, but taken the whole of his Mean­ing. — In answer to which, I would observe, That tho' the Distinction or Opposition is not expresly put between the Son of Man and the eternal Word in the very same Verse, or the next following; yet that the Disciples under­stood it then, or were taught to understand it, with the Dis­tinction thus put between the human Nature and the divine, or the eternal Word, is evident from their afterwards attri­buting to the eternal Word, or Christ personally consider­ed, infinite, unlimited Knowledge: And that we are to understand the Distinction or Opposition thus, is evident from the Current of Scripture; which declares our bles­sed Saviour to be God manifest in the Flesh; proclaims his Divinity and Equality with God the Father. — And this I have shewn, vindicates our Saviour's Assertion, if he was really GOD, from the Imputation of Falsehood or Inconsistency with Truth, equally as if he had made an immediate express Reserve; and by Parity of Reason, [Page 30] and plain Consequence, this vindicates him in not putting the Distinction or Opposition immediately and in express Terms, if he did know as GOD, between the Son of Man and the eternal Word; or between his Humanity and Divinity — So that it by no means follows, that our Sa­viour did not intend this Distinction of two Natures, be­cause he does not immediately and in express Terms put the Distinction or Opposition between the Son of Man and the eternal Word: There was either no Occasion of ex­pressing this Distinction then, they knowing it before, or he taught it there presently after, and hath sufficiently revealed it to us by his Word; if divested of Prejudice, we with good and honest Hearts read and consider it. — But then, ‘Are not all excepted from this Knowledge, but the Father only? How then can the Son have it in any Nature?’ Answ. The general Term of Father here comprehends the whole God-head; so that the Son and Holy Ghost are included under it, as well as the Fa­ther.—But how, What Proof or Ground is there to sup­pose that by the Term Father, we are to understand three distinct Persons here; and that the Son of Man stands opposed to all these included under the Term or Appel­lation of Father? — Answ. Because the holy Scriptures tell us, There are Three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these Three are One. —That the Father and Son are One.—That He that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father. — That He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father. —That the Son is the true God, — God blessed forever. That He knows all Things. — That He searcheth the Reins and the Hearts, &c. i. e. in short, The God-head, or Deity, is plainly represented as subsisting in three dis­tinct Persons, who equally partake of the divine Essence, and of all natural and moral Perfections; and conse­quently of Knowledge. Hence we conclude, That as all but the Father are excepted from the Knowledge of that [Page 31] Day; so by the Father, is intended the Deity, or God-head, or all the three Persons in which it subsists: And this Reason remains good, till it be shewn, that no such Things as the above-mentioned are contained in the holy Scriptures, that Jesus Christ is not represented as GOD equal with the Father; that infinite, unlimited Knowledge is not attributed to Him, &c,— which your Author has not done, unless his Reason and Grounds for supposing that by the Term or Appellation of FA­THER, cannot be intended three distinct Persons, or the whole God-head, if it subsists in three Persons, is an over-balance, for Reasons I have mentioned, to conclude the contrary: For certainly the most substantial Reason, the greatest Degree of Evidence and Probability, ought to be followed. Let us therefore view your Author's Rea­son, and see what Proportion it bears to the other.— His Reason then (if I mistake not) is this, That if the above Method of Interpretation be good and just, ‘he should despair of ever understanding the Scriptures above all Books that ever were written.’—It is indeed a Question with me, whether any Book of human In­vention is so difficult to understand, as the holy Scrip­tures, in many Parts: The Reason why is plain; be­cause they treat of the most sublime Truths; — Truths above the Comprehension of our Reason; and deal much in Parables, Metaphors and Figures of Speech: Besides, the Stile and Manner of Expression in those Idioms or Languages in which they were originally delivered, is very different from ours at present: We are also very much unacquainted with the Scituation, Manners, Cus­toms, Habits, &c, of the Countries and Nations of which they treat:— All which Things contribute to render many Parts of them abstruse, and hard to understand: And for these and other Reasons, many who are either unlearned, or unstable, wrest them to their own Destruc­tion. So that their being more difficult or hard to under­stand, [Page 32] than any other Book in general, is no Argument that the above Interpretation is wrong. — And to apply this Reason to the particular Case before us, it amounts to no more than this, That if the above Interpretation be allowed, this particular Sentence,— of that Day knows no Man, &c, is hard to understand, when considered singly by itself, without any regard to the other Scriptures; for if we take, and impartially consider, the whole Scrip­tures, they evidently direct us to this Interpretation; as I have shewn to be the Case, notwithstanding all your Author has yet offered to the contrary.—And is it a good or sufficient Reason to reject an Interpretation grounded upon a Variety of plain Scriptures, merely because the Text it self, to which the Interpretation is applied, if considered singly by it self, is hard to understand, accor­ding to this Interpretation? Surely it is not; and there­fore the Prop of this second Objection is weak and insig­nificant: And not much unlike it is the third; which I proceed to consider:

Object. 3 ^d. ‘THE Interpretation must needs be un­just, which, if admitted, will make all, even the most plain Speech, uncertain, and utterly insignificant; as this Interpretation of Christ's Words would do.’ — In answer to this, it might be sufficient to say, that like those already considered, it's entirely founded on the Sup­position that the holy Scriptures afford no Grounds for such an Interpretation (which yet remains to be proved) —For if Scripture explains it self, there is certainly no just Cause to complain or object, that it is unintelligible: — Or if it interprets some particular Texts or Sentences, in a Manner different from the most common and ordi­nary Use of Speech; it cannot therefore be justly objec­ted, that all Speech is hereby rendered uncertain and ut­terly insignificant.— This is to suppose that no Text or Sentence of Scripture whatever can possibly need any ex­plaining—That every Text in the Bible is to be literally [Page 33] understood in it's utmost Latitude, and ought not to have any limited or figurative Interpretation put upon it; but be understood precisely according to it's Letters and Syllables: Which any one who has ever read the Bibles must see would make horrible Work indeed with Scrip­ture, fill it with the most palpable Falsehoods, and gros, Contradictions;— In short, it would render every figu­rative Expression, (in which the Scriptures abound) en­tirely useless.—We must either understand them literally, or render them obnoxious to this Objection. — For every Interpretation that fixes a limited or figurative Sense upon Scripture, must, at least in Measure, have the same Tendency with this your Author objects against, to ren­der plain Speech uncertain and unintelligible. I would inquire how we are to understand the Psalmist, when he calls the Lord his Rock?—The Prophet, when he affirms of the Jews ‘ They have made their Faces harder than a Rock;’—And our Saviour, when he says, ‘ I am the Vine, ye are the Branches.—I am the Door.—This Bread is my Body: This Wine is my Blood, &c.’? I am perswaded your Author never thought that these Ex­pressions were to be literally understood; but explained them by his Senses, Reason and other Parts of Scripture, which give them a figurative Interpretation, different from the literal and common Meaning of these very Words and Syllables:—And why may not we complain, that plain Speech is hereby rendered uncertain and utterly in­significant?—And still further, if possible, to shew the Vanity of this Objection; and that your Author can with no Propriety urge it against the above Interpretation; I would observe, that he must continually swallow it him­self in its fullest Force, or renounce his own Opinion: For what will he tell us when we ask the Apostle's Meaning where he declares Christ to be God blessed forevermore— the true God—God, whose Throne is established forever, &c.? Will he tell us, these Expressions are to be under­stood [Page 34] of his Office, and not of his Person? Astonishing! How uncertain and insignificant then is the most plain and positive Speech!—I might also urge our Saviour's own Expressions, such as, I and the Father are ONE; what Things soever the Father doth, those also doth the Son likewise: He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, &c.—All which, and many more, to be­come consistent with your Author's Opinion, must un­dergo an Interpretation no less tending to render plain Speech uncertain and insignificant, than this he objects to: So that when your Author inquires, in what Words Je­sus Christ could in brief have denied himself to be God more plain and full than this or that, the same Method of Interpretation would not evade? The Question may be returned, at least with equal Force and Propriety,—In what Words could he or his Apostles have affirmed him to be truly God, more plain and full than they have done in a Variety of Instances, and which your Author's In­terpretation would not have evaded?—But I would not be thought by this to put the two Interpretations upon a level in point of Reason and Scripture-Evidence: That which your Author opposes has vastly the Advantage; not only for Reasons I have already mentioned, but as having the general Current of Scripture in its Favour; vastly beyond what your Author's can pretend to, which seems principally to depend upon the single Text now in debate.—And further, what I look upon much in Favour of the Interpretation I am pleading for is, that it's found­ed upon Expressions which either Christ himself uttered when professedly and designedly discoursing of himself; or were uttered by the Apostles, when designedly speaking of him and describing of him to Mankind.—Whereas this Text, which your Author lays the greatest Stress upon, (and indeed many of the others) may be termed acciden­tal (if any thing that came from the blessed Jesus may be so termed) i. e. He was not professedly and designedly [Page 35] speaking or discoursing of himself; he was not describing himself, telling who and what he was, or the like; but engaged upon a different Subject; and these Words seem to be more properly an Episode, or Circumstance, of the Discourse, than a proper Part of the Discourse itself: And this I humbly think, gives no small Advantage to the Interpretation your Author opposes.—I should have look'd upon the Words your Author builds his Hypo­thesis upon, in a very different Light, and I am perswa­ded some others would have urged them with greater Warmth and Resolution, if possible, had they been a Part of a Discourse wherein our Saviour himself, or his Apostles were designedly speaking concerning him, or giving a Description of him, to others who desired or wanted In­formation.—But not to enlarge further here,—

I proceed to,,

Object. 4. viz. ‘THAT this Interpretation does plainly overthrow the Cause that is designedly main­tained by it, and may be turned against it: For if it be just and true to deny of Christ absolutely what belongs to him in one Nature, because there is another Nature in which it belongs not to him; then, since to be the CHIEF GOD belongs to him (according to the above Method of Interpretation) only in one Nature, and not in respect of the other, or human Nature; it fol­lows, that it may as justly be said Jesus Christ is not GOD, nor to be worshipped or trusted as such; nay, that he was not before the Virgin Mary,—and the like; and this without adding any Limitation or Restriction, any more than our Lord does in the Place mentio­ned.’

Answ. THIS also is founded upon the old Supposition, That Scriptures afford no reasonable Grounds for the a­bove Interpretation; nor describe or represent our Lord Jesus in any other Light than your Author does:—For if we are to believe our Lord Jesus to be such as the [Page 36] general Current of plain Scripture represents him to be; and this represents him to be GOD as well as Man; then the Objection ceases, and your Author's Conclusion is false:—But that we are to believe on, and speak of, our Lord Jesus as being such as the general Current of plain Scripture represents him, cannot be denied by those who hold the Scriptures to be a perfect Rule for our Faith and Practice; and that the Scriptures represent our Lord Jesus to be GOD as well as Man, has not yet been re­futed: And to urge the present Objection for this End, will appear unreasonable, if we consider more distinctly what every one must allow, viz.

1 ^st, THAT our blessed Saviour was at Liberty, by his own Mouth, or that of his Apostles, to reveal Himself, the Design of his coming into the World, and the Nature of his Religion and Doctrine, in just what Form, and at what Time he pleased: And accordingly, while mani­fest in the Flesh, He revealed these Things to his own Disciples in a gradual Manner; and kept many Things, relating to the Nature and Design of his Kingdom, and Doctrine, secret, even from them, till after his Resur­rection and Ascention: For it was the Holy-Ghost sent by the Father, in his Name, that was to teach them all Things; and bring all Things to their Remembrance.

2 ^dly, IT cannot be denied, That after our Saviour had fully revealed Himself, the Design of his Coming into World, the Nature of his Religion, his Disciples, and all who enjoyed this Revelation, were obliged to believe on Him, and speak of Him, according to this whole Revelation taken together; one Part being com­pared with and explained by another; and not according to particular Texts or Sentences, while the Revelation was in its Infancy or imperfect State.—And if this be al­lowed (as I think it must be) then it follows, that it would be unreasonable in us, who enjoy this whole Revelation, to believe or speak of our blessed Saviour, and his Reli­gion, [Page 37] the grand Subject of it, exactly according to par­ticular Sentences and Phrases delivered while in its Infan­cy, and that are explained and interpreted by others of equal Authority: i. e. in short, Since the Scriptures re­present JESUS CHRIST to be GOD as well as Man, it would be absurd and unreasonable in us to speak of HIM abso­lutely, and without any Limitation or Reserve, either as GOD or Man—We may consistently and safely say, that JESUS CHRIST considered as Man, or with regard to his human Nature, is not GOD, nor to be worshipped; that he was not before the Virgin Mary, &c. But to speak of him absolutely and without any Limitation in this Form, would be absurd; because the Record God hath given of him, represents him to be truly GOD, attributes Worship to him, declares him to be eternal, &c.—So should any one preach that the human Nature of Christ was not GOD;—or should one say, I believe that JESUS CHRIST considered as GOD, was not conceived by the Holy Ghost, nor born of the Virgin Mary, nor crucified under Pontius Pilate, nor dead nor buried, &c. this would be just; for his divine Nature, which the Scriptures affirm he had, was not capable of these Things:—But should any one speak thus of him in absolute Terms, without any Limi­tation or Reserve, he might justly be accused of Falsehood (if nothing worse) because the Scriptures represent JESUS CHRIST to be both GOD and Man; to be incapable of suf­fering in his divine Nature, and to have actually suffered, &c. in his human.—And, (as has been observed) we are to consider the Scriptures as one continued Discourse or Record, which God hath given of his Son; of whom it is our Duty to believe and speak (when we use absolute Terms) according to the complex Description or Repre­sentation here given of Him.—Your Author thinks it strange if any Thing is to be believed relating to the su­preme Deity of Christ, that this is not taken Notice of in the Apostle's Creed, since this must be most important. [Page 38] —Is it not strange, that he could not see the Divinity, or Godhead of Christ, asserted in this brief Summary of the Christian Religion, when He is stiled, THE ONLY SON of God? How is he, his only Son? By Creation? No; Angels and Men were created by God likewise;—By a special Adoption? No; good Men are intitled to this;— By the Office of a Messenger, or Embassador? No, he cannot be alone in his Sonship if this be it; for Angels are dignified with this Office; and even the despised Mi­nisters of the Gospel:—Where then shall we go to find Christ alone in his Sonship, but to the Fountain of the Deity; where neither our Senses nor our Reason can ex­tend; and say, He is the ONLY SON OF GOD; which is the same as to say, He is TRUE GOD, equal with the FATHER?

Obj. 5. IT remains to consider your Author's fifth and last Objection, against the above Method of Interpre­tation, viz. ‘That it weighs something with him, that the Evangelists never take any Occasion (when, as he says, they had so many) to subjoin any Caution against taking Christ's Words in their obvious Sense ( i. e. in the Sense he interprets them) when he says, of that Hour knows not the Son, &c.’

Answ. AS this is not offered as a proper Objection, but only what weighed something with your Author, who (we may suppose) was easily attracted to this Way of thinking, and required no great Weight to move him down the Declivity, it would be a Waste of Time to con­sider it particularly and largely:—It will be sufficient to inquire, why the Evangelists did not subjoin a Caution when they penned these Expressions of our blessed Saviour, Matth. 16.18. On this Rock, I will build my Church— and Chapter 26. 26, 27. Take, eat, this is my Body —Drink ye all of it, for this is my Blood, &c.?— A Caution here, was certainly as necessary as in the Instance or Instances referr'd to; — and the Evan­gelists [Page 39] had as many Occasions to subjoin a Caution to the one as to the other.—The most obvious Reason why they did not, in either of them, appears to me to be this;— That the Evangelists spake and wrote as they were inspired or moved by the holy Ghost; who did not suggest to them the Necessity of such a Caution.—The Evangelists (as I imagine) never thought, that the Pope's Chair would be founded on One; the Doctrine of Transubstantiation on another; and the Doctrine of Arius on the third, of these Instances: — But infinite Wisdom has seen fit (for wise and holy Ends no doubt) to permit them all;—Tho' I am far from thinking that the Want of such Cautions, as your Author requires, will be any Excuse either for Pa­pists or Arians.

THUS I have considered your Author's Hypothesis, —the Scriptures upon which he grounds it,—and shewn how entirely it's overthrown by a fair and natural In­terpretation of other Scriptures; — That his Ob­jections against this, are vain; such as either have no Foundation at all, or may be retorted upon him in their full Force. His next Attempt is to shew, That there is no just Foundation in Scripture for this Interpretation; before which his Opinion must fall; that the Scriptures urg'd against him are capable of a different Turn, &c. This therefore deserves to be particularly considered; it being now the only Thing that can shelter the Opinion, I am opposing, from certain Ruin.—And upon an im­partial Inquiry, I doubt not but this will also appear a Refuge of Lies.—

HERE your Author proposes, first; to Answer the Objections against his Hypothesis; or refute the Ar­guments, usually brought from Scripture, to prove JESUS CHRIST to be really GOD, equal with the Father:—And he tells us, That because Omniscience is that infinite Per­fection, which is with the greatest Shew of Reason, or plausible Testimony alledged to belong to Christ; there­fore he chooses to single out This in particular.— But I am much mistaken, if he had not another and a truer Reason in his own Breast for this Conduct, viz. That his Reasoning upon This Topic has a greater Appear­ance of Truth, and is better adapted to deceive the In­considerate and Unstable, than it could be upon some others, which are alledged in Vindication of the supreme Deity of Jesus Christ:— That this is actually the Case, I doubt not, will be made to appear hereafter. —

I shall, in a few Words, expose the Fallacy of his Rea­soning, upon the very Topic he has singled out; what­ever End he proposed in choosing This, rather than another.

IT is alledged, in Vindication of the supreme Deity of Jesus Christ, That the Disciples attribute to Him, infinite, unlimited Knowledge; John 16.30. Now are we sure, that thou knowest all Things, &c. And, Chap, 21. 17. Lord, Thou knowest all Things, &c.—Now, infinite, un­limited Knowledge, is an incommunicable Perfection, and can belong only to the supreme God; and therefore, if the Disciples Testimony be true, CHRIST is the su­preme GOD; since they expresly attribute such Know­ledge to Him. — There is no Way to evade this Argu­ment, but by proving the Disciples Testimony to be false; which is what your Author attempts. — He tells [Page 41] us, ‘These Expressions are Words of Admiration from the Disciples not yet inspired; and are intended only to express a very great and comprehensive Knowledge, far from infinite, divine Omniscience:’

His Reasons for this are,

1 ^st, ‘That Christ himself says, Of that Day and Hour knows not the Son.’

THIS I have already shewn, is to be understood of his human Nature, and not of Him Personally considered; and that your Author's Objections against this Interpre­tation are groundless; so that it but poorly supplies the Place of an Argument here, to prove the Disciples Testi­mony false; or that they intended any Thing less by these Expressions than, infinite, divine Omniscience.— And,

2 ^dly. I MUST confess my Inability, to see the least Force in Argument second.— What! Does it follow that these Expressions of the Disciples are to be understood with a Limitation, as intending no more than a great or extra­ordinary Degree of Knowledge; because the Woman of Tekoah told King David, 2 Sam. 14.20, that He was wise according to the Wisdom of an Angel to know all Things on Earth?—Or does the Expression of St. John, 1 John 2.20, Ye know all Things (which he expressly limits to the Matters or Truths concerning which he was writing,) does this prove, that the Disciples are to be understood in a confined or limited Sense; when without any Limitation or Reserve, they attribute the Knowledge of all Things to Christ?— Or, Is the high Opinion the Jews had of their Prophets, an Argument that we should have a lower Opinion of our blessed Saviour? Or, Be­cause they assigned an almost universal Knowledge to them, must we assign a limited Knowsedge to Him?— The most that can be infer'd from these Passages is, That under certain Circumstances, the Disciples might possibly express themselves pretty much in this Manner; and yet intend no more by it, than a very great and compre­hensive [Page 42] Knowledge; because there are Examples in Scrip­ture of Expressions, somewhat similar, which did not intend infinite, divine Omniscience: I say, somewhat similar; because I challenge a single Instance to be pro­duced from Scripture, where an Expression of the like Nature was uttered with that Air of Assurance, which is manifest in this of the Disciples; Now we are sure, &c. Or, where the Expression it self, or what immediately preceeds or follows, does not plainly confine it to certain Bounds; or shew that it's to be understood in a limited Sense.— But this is not the Case here: The Expression is uttered with an Air of Assurance: The Terms are strong and explicite; and neither what preceeds or fol­lows so much as intimates, that they are to be under­stood, or were intended, with any Limitation.

For,

3 ^dly, IT'S to the last Degree absurd, to conclude, that the Disciples did not intend infinite, divine Omniscience; because they infer from our Saviour's Knowledge, that He came forth from God.—This is the very Thing I would infer from it, — That HE proceeded from the Father; and Equally partakes of the Divine Essence, and all possible Perfections:— Or, If we understand his coming forth from the Father, of his Mission into the World; the inferring this from his Knowledge, is no Argument that the Disciples did not look upon Him to be Omnisci­ent, and intentionally attribute this Perfection to Him.— But I am much mistaken, if the Disciples were not thoroughly convinced and assured of his divine Mission long before this; and therefore think it most probable, that by coming forth from God, they intended his supreme Deity, and Equallity with the Father; which they in­fer'd from his infinite Knowledge.—They surely believed Him to be at least, a Prophet sent of God, long before this: His Miracles were a most convincing Proof of this: Even some of the Pharisees declared, that no Man could [Page 43] do such Miracles, except God was with Him.— But here the Disciples are convinced of something New:— Now we are sure that thou knowest all Things; and hence, We believe that thou camest forth from God: i. e. That Thou art a divine Person; a Partaker of the divine Es­sence, and all divine Perfections. — Besides, Had the Disciples ascribed that, in such strong and explicit Terms, to our blessed Saviour, which belonged not to Him, is it not strange that he gives them no Reproof or Caution? Was He such a Lover of hyperbolical Encomiums and ful­some Adulations, as to allow his own Disciples, without the least Rebuke, to attribute that to Him, a Creature, which belongs only to the Creator? I add, That if our Saviour had not infinite, divine Omniscience, or such a Knowledge as belongs only to GOD supreme; St. Peter's Argument, That He knew his Love to Him, is ground­less.—For, from what, short of an unlimited Knowledge of the Hearts of all Men, could he infer his Knowledge of his Heart, or Love to Him? St. Peter must have argued very foolishly, as well as falsely, to have infer'd, That Christ knew his Heart; or, (which is the same,) his Love to Him, merely because he knew many Things; or had a great and comprehensive Knowledge; or in­deed any Knowledge short of infinite, divine Omniscience; or that of the Hearts of all Men, which belongs only to GOD supreme.

BUT that our Lord Jesus had infinite, divine Omnisci­ence, and the Knowledge of Men's Hearts in particular, appears not only from these and other Expressions of the like Nature;—But

Secondly, FROM his own Words, Rev. 2.23: Where he claims it as his sole Prerogative to search the Reins and the Hearts; and, all the Churches shall know, that I am HE which search the Reins and the Hearts:—Now Solo­mon declares, 1 Kings 8.39, Thou (i. e. God) even thou only, knowest the Hearts of all the Children of Men; and [Page 44] Jerem. 17.10, God declares by the Prophet, I the Lord search the Heart; I try the Reins, &c. Here the great God is, as plainly as Words can express, distinguished from all others, by his knowing and searching the Hearts and trying the Reins of all Men.—It belongs to Him only, to search the Hearts; and to give to every Man according to his Ways, and the Fruit of his Doings.—And therefore, since our Lord Jesus declares himself to be, HE who searcheth the Reins and the Hearts, and gives to every one according to their Works, HE must be the great and supreme GOD:—He expressly claims that as his sole Pre­rogative, by which the great God is distinguished from all others.—He does not say, the Churches shall know that I search the Reins and the Hearts; but, that I am HE;—Which, if Words have any Force in them; yea, if the Expression is not altogether unintelligible, implies, I am HE who is distinguished by this Character; or the Churches shall know that I am THE GOD, who search­eth the Reins and the Hearts, to give to every one accord­ing to their Works.

LET us now inquire what your Author has said to in­validate this, which he promises a serious Consideration; and, with an Air of Seriousness, insinuates that, ‘'Tis no wonder that Solomon should not know of any other to whom that Excellency, viz. the Knowledge of the Hearts of all Men, was communicated, than God only.’ If I understand him, he means that it's no wonder if So­lomon was ignorant that this Excellency was, or could be communicated from God to any one:—If so, this is a Point I shall not even attempt to dispute; it being the very Thing I would infer from the Words of Solomon, that he thought the Knowledge of the Hearts of all Men peculiar to God; that He only, has an underived, inde­pendent and unlimited Knowledge of the Hearts of Men; which is an incommunicable Perfection or Excellency; a distinguishing Character of the supreme God; tho' in some [Page 45] low Degree and at some particular Times, one Man may have the Knowledge of another's Heart by Revelation from God; i. e. in short, God may reveal to his Crea­tures, Things which they could not know or discover by any other Means: But does it hence follow, that Christ's Knowledge of Men's Hearts is communicated to Him? or, that it's derived from and dependent upon a­ny one? Does it follow by any Rules of Reasoning, ex­cepting those your Author hath invented, that our Savi­our's Knowledge of the Hearts of Men was derived from another, because that of the Prophets and Apostles was; who at certain Times and in some Degree had this Know­ledge? Surely no; an Appeal to the Reason and sober Thought of every Person is a sufficient Answer to such forced and unnatural Conclusions.—But,

‘DOES not Christ himself own, that he knew what he reveals in the seven Epistles to the seven Churches by Revelation from God? It was the Revelation which God gave to Jesus Christ,&c.’—

Answer; To give this any Weight at present, the Truth and Justness of your Author's Objections, in Chap. 2 ^d, must be granted; but the Vanity of these hath been already shewn, and therefore the Method of Interpretation I have maintained against them, is a plain and natural So­lution of this, viz. That God gave this Revelation to Christ, as Man, or as our Mediator, and therewith a Commission to shew it to his Servants; so that this Re­velation's being given to him in this Character, is no Ar­gument against his Divinity, or his infinite, divine Om­niscience.

IT would be trifling to take Notice of his quibbling An­swer to those who say, that Christ's searching the Heart imports it to be his own Act.—

He argues Secondly, ‘THAT there is no Absurdity in attributing this Knowledge of the Heart to Jesus Christ, tho' he be not the most high GOD. That he knows [Page 46] Things with some Limitation as to the Degree, and in Dependence on his Father as to the Manner, he thinks appears from what he has already said; and therefore concludes that the Knowledge of the Heart attributed to him, must be such as is consistent with his subordi­nation to the Father's greater Knowledge.’

BUT as I have already shewn, that those Texts from which Christ's inferiority or subordination to the Father has been argued, are to be understood of his human Na­ture, or of him as Mediator, and not of him Personally; and removed the Objections against this Interpretation; so the Conclusion your Author makes is invalid: There is no Necessity, nor any sufficient Reason yet produced, that the Knowledge of Christ must be such as is consistent with any subordination to the Father's Knowledge.

IT has not yet been shewn, that the Father has greater Knowledge than He; and therefore it can with no Pro­priety be concluded, that his Knowledge must be subordi­nate to the Father's: This is begging the Question.

AND now, should the Point be granted, which your Author labours so long upon, viz. ‘That it can ne­ver be demonstrated, that it exceeds a finite Capacity to know the Concerns of all on this Earth, when the enlarged Understanding is assisted in the highest Man­ner by divine Influence and Revelation.’—Yet this can no Ways militate against the infinite, divine Omniscience of Jesus Christ: At least, it will be as difficult to show, that whatever cannot be demonstrated to be absurd or impossible is true of Him, as that a finite Being cannot possibly know all the Concerns of this Earth.

YOUR Author's Argument stands thus:—"It cannot be demonstrated impossible, that a finite Being should by any Means know the Concerns of all on this Earth; and therefore tho' Christ knows the Concerns of all on this Earth, yet he is a finite Being, and has not infinite, divine Omniscience."—This is plainly your Author's Sense; thô [Page 47] not exactly his Words; or else I can't see to what Pur­pose he asserts, that it cannot be demonstrated impossible for a finite Being to know the Concerns of all on this Earth.—But there needs no Words to shew his Conclu­sion to be arbitrary and groundless thus far.— And should it be further granted, that Christ as Mediator, or Man, knows, from Time to Time, the various Miseries, Cases and Necessities of his Servants; which is the most that your Author pretends to; yet it does not follow, that he is not Omniscient; or that he did not intend to repre­sent Himself as the OMNISCIENT GOD, when he says, All the Churches shall know, that I am He which search­eth the Reins and the Hearts.—Thô I think it highly necessary, that the Judge of Men and Angels should be Omniscient; and therefore that none is qualified for this, but the MOST HIGH GOD; who is declared to be Judge himself, Psal. 50.6, compared with Heb. 12.23.— Yet to shorten the Work, and refute your Author's Rea­soning in his own Way, I give him the Point he contends for, viz. That Jesus Christ, as Man, may from Time to Time be acquainted with the Wants and Miseries of his Servants; yet I argue, that he intended to represent Himself as the Omniscient God, from the Manner of the Expression; and indeed the whole Force of the Argument lies in this: For if it be demonstrated absolutely necessary, that our Mediator and Judge, should be the omniscient God any other Way, there would be no need of this, or any other Text, to prove it:—Your Author therefore evidently flies from the Question, and quits himself of the Argument which he pretends to Answer.—Instead of shewing, that our Saviour does not represent himself to be Omniscient; he challenges a Demonstration, that it's absolutely necessary that he should be, and utterly im­possible that he should know the Miseries and Wants of his Servants without this: i. e. in short, he requires some other Proof or Demonstration of Christ's Omniscience, [Page 48] before he admits his own Words as a Proof of it:—A Method of Reasoning I must confess entirely new to me, till I read your Author!—I always thought that one, or at least two unanswerable Arguments were sufficient to prove any Point, whether Civil or Theological:—And upon this Footing our Saviour's Omniscience is clear and undeniable: For (as I have already shewn) his Disciples ascribed infinite, unlimited Knowledge to Him:—And here He himself claims a distinguishing, Character of Almighty GOD; that by which his infinite, divine Omniscience is frequently represented; Thou, even thou only knowest the Hearts of all the Children of Men—I the Lord search the Heart; I try the Reins, even to give every Man accord­ing to his Ways, and the Fruit of his Doings: — And, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold I, even I will both search my Sheep, and seek them out.—These are Expressions by which GOD Almighty dustinguishes Himself; the Charac­ters of his Omniscience, by which his universal, underived and independent Knowledge of the Hearts of Men, is most emphatically represented:—This is one of the Characters by which he is known: See Psal. 7.9, For the righteous God trieth the Heart and Reins, &c. — Jer. 11.20, But O Lord of Hosts, that judgest righteously, that triest the Reins and the Heart, &c.—and many other Texts to the same Purpose might be produced, were it necessary, where GOD Almighty is expressly distinguished and cha­racterized by his searching, trying, and knowing the Reins and Hearts:—The Conclusion therefore is plain and un­deniable, that CHRIST is the Almighty, Omniscient GOD; since he expressly declares himself to be, HE which searcheth the Reins and the Hearts, to give to every one according to their Works: — Nor does any Thing your Author has said, in the least militate against this Conclu­sion; but granting all he contends for, it remains good, viz. ‘That Solomon did not know of any other to whom this Excellency was communicated—That it cannot [Page 49] be demonstrated absurd and impossible, that a finite Ca­pacity should know the Concerns of all on this Earth, &c.—And, that Jesus Christ, as Man, may by the Assistance of God, know from Time to Time the Mi­series and Wants of his Servants.’ — Tho' all this be granted as true; yet it no Ways militates against the Truth of the Conclusion, that CHRIST is the omniscient GOD:—Which does not depend upon a Demonstration that these Things are false, as your Author insinuates;— for these may all be true, and yet the Premises from which I draw my Conclusion be strictly true likewise: — Thus, GOD Almighty is frequently characterized and distinguish­ed in Scripture by his searching, trying and knowing the Hearts and Reins of Men.—But JESUS CHRIST is thus characterized and distinguished; nay, what is more, he expressly asserts Himself, without any Limitation, and in the strongest Terms, to be HE which searcheth the Reins and the Hearts; — therefore He must be the Almighty GOD. Now which of these Propositions do the Points your Author contends for, militate against? — Does it follow, that GOD Almighty is not thus characterized and distinguished, because Solomon thought that He, and He only, was? Or, because its not demonstrably absurd and impossible that a finite Capacity should, by the Assistance of God, know the Concerns of all on this Earth? Or, that Jesus Christ, as Man, should by this Means know the Miseries and Wants of his Servants? Surely no: For if GOD is any where emphatically and plainly distinguished and characterized in Scripture, it is by his searching, try­ing and knowing the Hearts of Men:—I challenge an In­stance to the contrary of this;—or where GOD Almighty is more plainly and emphatically distinguished from all o­thers, by any Character whatever, than He is by this of searching, trying and knowing Men's Hearts; and if so, then allowing your Author's Reasoning just. He is no where distinguished by any Perfection or Excellency; nor [Page 50] is there any Thing by which we can know him from some of his Creatures. If the same Expressions which are brôt to distinguish and characterize the great GOD, are appli­cable to his Creatures, they do not distinguish him at all: Thus; e. g. to say that if searching the Heart, &c. when applied immediately to God, means, that none knows the Heart as God does, so universally, so immediately and independently, (as your Author owns;) and yet that, when applied to Christ in the very same Words, it means no more than that he has a derived, limited Power of searching the Hearts, is very absurd: 'Tis as much as to say, The very same Expressions which denote the univer­sal, immediate and independent Knowledge of the su­preme GOD, and distinguish Him from all created Beings; denote no more than the limited, derived and dependent Knowledge of CHRIST; and distinguish him only from some ignorant, short-sighted Mortals.

AGAIN, Secondly, It cannot be alledged, that any Thing your Author has said, militates against the second of the Propositions, from which the Conclusion is deduced, that CHRIST is GOD omniscient, viz. That HE is characterized and distinguished in the same Manner that the supreme GOD is, by searching the Reins and the Hearts, to give to every one according to their Works: This is a plain Fact, which admits of no Dispute, That Jesus Christ actually in the strongest Terms, and most explicit Manner, declares him­self to be HE which searcheth the Reins and the Hearts.— And therefore it follows, that CHRIST himself is the su­preme, omniscient GOD, who only knows the Hearts of the Children of Men; and who is distinguished from all others, by searching and trying the Reins and the Hearts.—I add, That the Expression I am He, as it is here spoken of CHRIST, seems to be peculiarly appropriated to the su­preme GOD in Scripture: Thus, Isaiah 41.4. I the Lord, the first, and with the last, I am He; Chap. 46.4. I am He, &c. 51.12. I, even I, am He that comforteth you. [Page 51] The great GOD here distinguishes himself from all others, by saying I am He; this evidently denotes his great Power, Might and Supremacy: And this Expression, if I mistake not, is no where in Scripture used in the same Manner by any but God Himself. Our Saviour's using it in this Manner is therefore a probable Argument that he in­tended to represent Himself as the supreme GOD; and to distinguish Himself from all, that by Revelation, or a de­rived Power obtain a Knowledge of the Hearts of Men; as God distinguishes Himself from all subordinate Comforters, when he says, I am He which comforteth you.—But what confirms it, that our Saviour intends here to represent Himself as the supreme, omniscient GOD, is his expressly claiming another distinguishing Character of God Almigh­ty, in the proceeding Chapter, Ver. 8 and 11.—See, Isa. 44.6. Thus saith the Lord, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of Hosts, I am the First, and I am the Last;— And, Chap. 41.4.48.12. In all which Places, the supreme GOD distinguishes and characterizes Himself in this Manner, I AM THE FIRST AND THE LAST. And in the same Manner our Saviour distingui­shes and characterizes Himself.— I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, saith the Lord; which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.— I AM — THE FIRST AND THE LAST. — And what can be the Import of these Expressions, but that HE is the Eternal, Self-Existent, Almighty GOD? — Or, What could our Saviour intend to represent Himself to be, unless what the Prophet Isaiah declares of Him, (no doubt by divine Inspiration,) that He is, Wonderful, — Councellor, — the MIGHTY GOD, — the everlasting Father,— the Prince of Peace, Chap. 9.6. Or could He in any stronger or more emphatical Terms, have declared Himself to be, in the most eminent Sense, Eter­nal, Immortal and Omnipotent? — Besides creating Power, which necessarily implies Omnipotency, is expresly [Page 52] attributed to Him; Joh. 1.3, All Things were made by Him; and without Him was not any Thing made that was made. Heb. 1.10, 11, 12, And, Thou Lord, in the Beginning hast laid the Foundation of the Earth, and the Heavens are the Works of thine Hands, &c.—And since these other distinguishing Characters of the supreme GOD, are expressly claimed by, and attributed to our Lord Jesus, there is no Room to doubt, but that he in­tended to represent Himself as the omniscient GOD, by saying, All the Churches shall know, that I am HE which searcheth the Reins and the Hearts: And considering how plainly, frequently and emphatically these distinguishing Characters of the supreme GOD are claimed by and attri­buted to CHRIST; it is absurd and arbitrary to require Ar­guments for his supreme DEITY from any other Topics than these, which as plainly assert and prove it, as Words can do.—Thus it appears that this Argument for the su­preme DEITY of CHRIST, remains good notwithstanding all your Author's Labour to refute and overthrow it: And indeed all that he himself pretends to, is, to have shewn it possible for Christ, by Revelation from God, to know the Miseries and Wants of his Servants, tho' himself be not God; which is far from shewing that Christ is not God, or that he did not intend to represent himself as God; and no ways affects or weakens the Arguments I have used to show that he intentionedly claims a distin­guishing Character of the supreme GOD.—To conclude this Head; should any one be disposed to make the Trial, and apply our Author's reasoning against the Omniscience of CHRIST, against his eternal Existence, or almighty creating Power, as asserted in Scripture; I am much mistaken if they would not have the Mortification to be disappointed, and find themselves unable to dress False­hood with so great an Appearance of Truth; as your Au­thor has done upon this Topic: And this will easily ac­count for his prefering this to any other; and likewise [Page 53] prove him mistaken when he insinuates, that the same Reasoning he has used here will hold equally true when applied to any other divine Perfection attributed to Christ: If he means thus, there is as good a Foundation for this way of Reasoning against any other Perfection as that of Omniscience, I readily join with Him: But if he intends by it, that the same Way of Reasoning (or indeed any other) would have the like semblance of Truth, when applied to those other Perfections I have mentioned, as when applied to this of Omniscience, it is what I very much scruple:—It must be confessed, his Reasoning here has a very specious Appearance of Truth; and may over­set the Ignorant and Unstable; for which Reason I have dwelt the longer upon it; and more distinctly and par­ticularly exposed its Fallacy, than I should otherwise have done; and more largely vindicated this Point of Christ's Omniscience; because some of my Reasoning in the for­mer Part of this Letter is grounded upon it; and as I have maintained this, so whatever depends upon the Truth of it, remains good.

Secondly. I proceed to argue the supreme Deity of JESUS CHRIST from that Worship and Homage we are com­manded to pay Him; and consider your Author's Ob­jections against it.

THE supreme Deity of CHRIST is argued from the Worship and Homage we are commanded to pay to him. —Thus, the supreme GOD only is the proper Object of the religious Worship and Homage of his Creatures, Math. 4.10. It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God; and him only shalt thou serve. The Disciples of our Saviour, yea Angels have refused to receive Homage from Men, they being all equally Servants to their common Creator:—And indeed, Reason teaches us, that all our religious Homage and Praise, should be ultimately to the supreme GOD—That whatever Homage we pay to any [Page 54] created Being, it should be subordinate to that which we pay to GOD, who is the Fountain of all Being; and from whom Men and Angels derive all their Happiness.— "This is a Point never disputed, that I know of, by Arian or Socinian Doctors." And now that religious Worship is to be paid to Christ, as the ultimate Object of it, appears,

1 ^st. FROM John 5.23. That All Men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father:—That is, says your Author, ‘as truely, not as greatly; because the Father hath committed or given all Judgment to him.’ If I understand him here, he supposes that Christ's having all Judgment committed to him, is the sole Ground and Foundation of that Honour which we are commanded to pay to him; and therefore, that this Honour must be inferiour to that which we owe the Father: Or, that tho' we are truely to honour Christ, yet we are not to honour him as we honour the Father, or with the same Honour:—But this Conclusion is entirely overthrown by what follows in the very same Verse— He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father: —But if the Son's having all Judgment committed to him, is the sole Ground of his claiming Honour and Homage from us, it will be difficult to show how and why his Honour is so inseparably connected with the Father's.— If it be said, that he who neglects to honour the King's Officer or Ambassador, neglects to honour the King him­self.—I answer, that tho' such an one would neglect to honour the King in this particular Instance; yet he might honour him in other Instances; he might respect and honour his Person and Government in general, tho' he neglected to honour even the highest Officer in his King­dom: But here it is indefinitely declared, that he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father; i. e. He does not duly honour or glorify the Father, who refuses to honour and glorify the Son, as he does the Father.— [Page 55] Honour must therefore be due to the Son upon some other Grounds, than that of his having all Judgment committed to him; even because he is true God, equal with the Fa­ther; and therefore as great and true Honour is due to Him as to the Father; as great Faith, Love, Fear, Wor­ship and Obedience is due to the Son as to the Father.— It's absurd to suppose, that the Honour of Almighty GOD, as due from us, is inseparably connected with the Honour of any mere Creature; and therefore since His Honour is thus connected with the Honour of Christ, to suppose Christ a mere Creature, is absurd. Again,

2 ^dly. THAT the same Honour, Homage or Worship, is due to the Father and Son, and upon the same Grounds, appears from Matth. 28.19. Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST.—Now, that Baptism is an Act of religious Worship, can admit of no reasonable Dispute: It is represented in the New-Testa­ment, as an essential Branch of Christianity: It was con­stantly required of all who came into the Church, or made a Profession of Christ's Religion in the Apostle's Time: And our Saviour himself makes it ordinarily necessary to Salvation under the Gospel, Mark 16.16.—Moreover, if we consider the Thing signifyed, or represented by this Sacrament; — the Temper with which it should be received; whether personally or for others; and the End that should be aimed at, and answered by it; it must ap­pear to be a most important and solemn Act of religious Worship and Homage:—And that it is so, as properly and immediately, with respect to the Son and Holy Ghost, as it is with respect to the Father, admits of no Controversy. We are as truly and properly baptized in the Name of the Son and Holy Ghost, as of the Father; and therefore this is an Act of Worship paid as immediately and as properly to the Son and Holy Ghost, as to the Father:—But, says your Author, ‘We are baptized in the Name of the Son, [Page 56] because, All Power in Heaven and Earth was given to Him:’ Which he gathers from the preceeding Verse, — All Power is given unto me in Heaven and Earth,— therefore, go and baptize, &c. Now it is plain, beyond all Contradiction, that if Christ's having all Power given him, is asserted here as the only proper Grounds of our being baptized in his Name; the very same is the Grounds of our being baptized in the Father's Name; for the same Reason (if any at all) is assigned for the one as the other: And we may with the same Propriety infer, that we are baptized in the Father's Name, because all Power is given to the Son, as that we are baptized in the Son's Name for this Reason; and therefore, it cannot be hence inferred that this is the proper and only Ground of our being baptized in the Name of the Son: — It is plain, that Christ's having all Power given him, is men­tioned here only as the Ground of his sending or com­missioning his Disciples (as the Mediator between GOD and Man,) to teach and baptize all Nations; and not as the Reason of their being baptized in the Name of the Son. And thus it renewedly appears, that we are commanded to pay religious Worship and Homage to CHRIST, as the proper and ultimate Object of it: And that, as easy as your Author insinuates it to be, he has not shewn nor offered any Thing of Reason to the contrary. I might produce other Instances to the same Purpose, were it ne­cessary,—As Philippians 2.10. Hebrews 1.6. Where, All the Angels of God are commanded to worship HIM.— But it will sufficiently confirm what has been said (if there be need of further Testimony) to produce Instances from Scripture, where religious Worship is evidently given to CHRIST, as the proper and ultimate Object of it.

I FORBEAR mentioning the many Instances of his re­ceiving Worship from his own Disciples and others, be­fore his Crucifixion and Ascention; because it may be said, perhaps, that this was not religious Worship; nor any [Page 57] Thing more than what was common to pay to Persons of Distinction among the Jews: Tho' I must confess I see no Reason to suppose it any other than such Worship as the Disciples refused to receive, because they were Men; and such as the Angel refused to receive from St. John, because he was his fellow-Servant.—The very same Word is used in the Original, for that Worship which Christ received without any Hesitation, as for that which the Apostles and the Angel refused, because they were Men and fellow-Servants. — From whence I might argue, That this was such Worship as no Dignity of Office or Nature, short of the DIVINE, was entitled to.

BUT there are also various Instances where religious Worship and Homage was paid our Lord JESUS by the Apostles after his Ascention.

1. THERE is no more immediate Act of Worship and Homage paid to Almighty GOD, than that of adoring Him, as the Creator and unchangeable Upholder of the Universe: And this Homage the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap. 1.10, 11, 12, expresly attributes to our Lord JESUS;— And, Thou Lord, in the Begin­ning, hast laid the Foundation of the Earth; and the Heavens are the Works of thy Hands; they shall perish, but thou remainest, &c. Thou art the same, and thy Years shall not fail.— Now in what more solemn and immediate Manner can we address the great GOD, and acknowledge and adore Him, as the Creator of Heaven and Earth; not to say, as an eternal, unchange­able Being? 'Tis most immediately applied to Him;— And, Thou Lord, and terminates in Him, without any Reserve or Limitation. The Lord JESUS therefore, who is thus addressed, is the proper immediate and ulti­mate Object of this solemn, religious Adoration.—

Again,

2. THE Apostles, in almost all their Epistles, Bless the Churches or Persons to whom they wrote, in the Name [Page 58] of the Lord JESUS:— The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you, is the common Conclusion:—Which plainly implies an immediate Supplication or Prayer to CHRIST for Grace. And how Arian and Socinian Doctors can use this Apostolical Form of Blessing the Church, and acquit themselves of Idolatry, or worshipping a mere Creature, while they look upon the Lord Jesus as such, I must Confess is a Mystery to me.

3. ST. Peter attributes everlasting Praise and Domi­nion to CHRIST; See 1 Epist. 4.11, To whom be Praise and Dominion forever and ever, Amen. And, 2 Epist. Chap. 3. ult, To Him be Glory both now and forever, AMEN. — Strange Language this, to a mere Creature! —To One whose Praise, Dominion and Glory must cease at the End of this World! —But not to multiply Argu­ments in so clear a Case, I shall only mention those In­stances of religious Worship and Homage paid to CHRIST, Rev. 5.12, 13, 14, Saying, with a loud Voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive Power, and Riches, and Wisdom, and Strength, and Honour, and Glory, and Blessing: And every Creature, which is in Heaven, and the Earth, and under the Earth, &c,— heard I, saying, Blessing, and Honour, and Glory, and Power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the Throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever: And the four Beasts, or living Creatures said, Amen: And the four and twenty Elders fell down, and worshipped Him that liveth forever and ever.

TO conclude this Head; St. John tells us, Rev. 21.22, in his Description of the New-Jerusalem, that he saw no Temple therein; for the Lord God Almighty, and the Lamb are the Temple of it; and Ver. 23, The Lamb is the Light thereof:—Whence it plainly appears, that JESUS CHRIST, or the LAMB, shall be the Object of our Worship and Praise, after your Author divests Him of his Power, Dominion and Dignity.—When we shall no longer need a Temple made with Hands; when all ex­ternal [Page 59] Ordinances, Means and Instruments of Worship shall cease; then the Lord God Almighty, and the Lamb, shall be our Temple and our Sun; the Place and Object of our Worship and Praise shall be One, thro' an endless Eternity. — Thus it appears that JESUS CHRIST is, and forever shall be, the immediate, proper and ultimate Ob­ject of the Worship and Homage of all created Beings.

BUT your Author attempts to answer all that has been said, or can be said, to support the Doctrine of CHRIST' S Divinity, at once, by offering it as his Judg­ment, that this subverts the Gospel Doctrine of his Me­diation.

BEFORE I particularly examine and answer his Reasons for this, I beg Leave to premise a few Things, viz. (1.) That a Consideration of the plain Proofs and Arguments which have been offered for the supreme Deity of JESUS CHRIST, will make a wise Man exceeding cautious how he yields his Faith to the contrary, without plain and in­telligible Arguments, or an over-balance of Evidence and Proof either from Scripture or Reason, or from both. (2.) In Consideration of what has been said in Vindica­tion of the supreme Deity of CHRIST, it would be foolish to deny and disbelieve it, merely because there is some­thing in it mysterious, hard to understand, and above or beyond the Comprehension of our Reason.—To believe Things which are contrary to Reason or common Sense; or to invent and forge Mysteries without any Foundation, and recommend them for Doctrines of Truth, which ought to be believed, is absurd and foolish:—But to be­lieve there is no Truth above, or beyond the Comprehen­sion of our Reason, is equally so; especially if they be such as respect the divine Nature, Perfections and Attri­butes, which are incomprehensible; and which none by searching can find out.—Thus the ingenious and learned Doctor Leng observes, ‘That if a Revelation from GOD is necessary to teach us any Thing concerning the di­vine [Page 60] Nature, and his Designs towards Mankind, and in Relation to a future State, more than what we could naturally know before; it must of Necessity be some­thing which our Reason could not discover: And as far as the Nature of an infinite Being is concerned in it, it must exceed our finite Capacities by the very Nature of Things; and yet the Belief of it, when so revealed, may be very reasonable, so long as it implies no Con­tradiction.’ — He adds, ‘And indeed it would be a much greater Prejudice against a Revelation's being from God, if it had no Marks in it of any Thing but what human Reason could have discovered without it.’ See Leng's Serm. at Boyle's Lect. Pag. 503. (3.) Before I distinctly consider your Author's Opinion, I would ob­serve in general, what the common Notion of Trinitarians is; and that which I imagine he intends to oppose, con­cerning Jesus Christ as our Mediator—It is briefly this, that in the one Godhead or Divine Essence there are three real Differences, or distinct Persons, represented and dis­tinguished in Scripture by the Names of Father, Son, and Holy-Ghost: — That these Three equally partake of the One God-head, or divine Essence:— That the Second of these divine Persons, ( viz. the SON,) in order to the Redemption of Mankind from moral Evil and Depravity, and eternal Death and Misery, (the just and necessary Consequence of their Rebellion and Apostacy from God,) freely and voluntarily engaged to be our Mediator and Advocate, to vindicate the Honour and Authority of the divine Law, by assuming the human Nature into a personal Union with the divine; which in due Time he actually did, and hath forever vindicated and established the Honour and Authority of the divine Law by his per­fect Obedience and Sufferings: — That after his Obedi­ence and Sufferings were compleated, He, (the Man Christ Jesus, personally united to the DIVINE NATURE) ascended into Heaven, to the Place of GOD'S most imme­diate [Page 61] Presence and Glory; where He continues to offer and plead the Worth and Merit of his Obedience and Sufferings, in the behalf of Sinners; by virtue of which, divine Grace and Goodness, I mean moral and mental Excellencies, such as are necessary to qualify us for a glo­rious Immortality, as well as natural Enjoyments, are freely dispensed to Mankind; and in particular to his true and sincere Disciples, who have this Confidence a­bove others, that if they ask any Thing in his Name, and agreeable to his Will, they are heard; and that, of his Fulness they shall receive, and Grace for Grace. — This in general is the common Notion those have of JESUS CHRIST, as Mediator, who oppose your Author.

LET us now inquire, Whether any Thing he has said shews this Notion of JESUS CHRIST, as Mediator, to be false or inconsistent: And, Whether it is not perfectly a­greeable to the Scripture Account of this Matter.

1 ^st then, IT is objected, ‘If we must have one who is supreme God and Man, for our Mediator with God; then, when we address to Jesus Christ as the supreme God, where is the God-Man that must be our Mediator with Him? To say, He mediates with Himself, is the same as to say, we must go to Him without a Mediator, &c.’

Answer, IT is not pretended, that GOD, or the Deity of Jesus Christ, simply considered, is our Mediator with GOD;— nor yet, that Christ as meer Man is to be worshipped: — But, agreeable to what has been pre­mised, that the human Nature, or the Man Christ Jesus, tho' as united to the divine, acts as Mediator.— So that when we address to JESUS CHRIST as the supreme GOD, our Mediator is the Man Christ Jesus united to the GOD, or divine Nature.—Where then is there any want of a Mediator?— Here is One, as truly and properly, as when we address to GOD the Father, the Man Christ Jesus, or the human Nature as united to the divine, is [Page 62] our Mediator, whether we address, adore or worship the Deity of the Father, Son or Holy-Ghost.—But,

2 ^dly, IT is objected, That this is still to make Christ Mediator with Himself;—the Man Christ mediates with the God Christ:—Besides, the Man is not God-Man.

Answ. 'TIS true, This is supposing that Christ, as Man, but united to the divine Nature, mediates with Himself as GOD: But this by no means subverts the Doctrine of his Mediation, when we address to Him as GOD: Nor yet does it make the Deity, which we ad­dress to, or adore, a Mediator with Himself.— The Man-Christ, as united to the divine Nature, is our Me­diator with GOD the Father, Son and Holy Ghost: — And this Man-Christ, 'tis not pretended, is to be ad­dressed to, adored, or worshipped, as a divine Person; or the ultimate Object of our religious Homage; which would be gross Idolatry. So that we neither include the Mediator, by whom we worship, and the Object of our Worship in One, nor confound them together.— We address to JESUS CHRIST, as being the Brightness of the Father's Glory, and the express Image of his Person; Heb. 1.3. i. e. We adore and worship HIM as GOD, exclusive of any personal Union with our Nature; but we esteem Him as Man united to the divine Nature, to be our Mediator; and as such we go to GOD by Him. — Thus, When I pray to JESUS CHRIST, it is as GOD; and I humbly hope to be heard and answered thro' the Mediation of the Man Christ Jesus, who is every Way qualified for this Office, by virtue of his Union to the divine Nature.

BUT it will perhaps be objected; — Is not this sup­posing Mankind destitute of a Mediator till the Incarna­tion of the SON of GOD? — If it be the Man Christ Jesus that is the Mediator, — Who was Mediator before there was such a Man? — And, Did not the DIVINE WORD (or LOGOS) immediately interpose and act as Mediator [Page 63] upon the Fall of our First Parents, and so for 4000 Years before he was made Flesh, or assumed the human Nature, and while the human Nature was a Child, &c.?

Answ. TO remove these Difficulties, let it be observed, — First, THAT the Mediation of Christ consists of two Parts, the Intercessory and Expiatory. Heb. 11.25, He ever liveth to make Intercession for them. 1 Pet. 3.18, For Christ also hath once suffered for Sins, the Just for the Unjust. And, Heb. 10.14, By one Offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified, &c. —

Secondly, THE expiatory Part of Christ's Mediation is the Ground and Basis of the Intercessory. — To suppose an Advocate or Intercessor who has nothing to plead or represent in Favour of those he interceeds for, is absurd: — And to suppose that our Intercessor represents or pleads any personal Accomplishments or Qualifications of Mankind in their Favour, is no less so. For would our personal Accomplishments and Qualifications recom­mend us to GOD, we should no longer need a Mediator or Intercessor: Such an Office would be quite superflu­ous. —We must therefore conclude, that our Intercessor has something of his own to plead and represent in Favour of Mankind, in order to their obtaining the divine Fa­vour and Forgiveness. — And if so, if this is the Condi­tion of our Acceptance with God, that some One repre­sent an adequate Merit of his own in our Favour, we must conclude that the Mediator between God and Man, did actually plead and present an adequate Merit of his own in Favour of Man immediately upon his Fall; or as soon as he fell under such Circumstances as to need a Mediator, (which all agree was soon after his Creation and at the Time of his eating the forbidden Fruit,) other­wise his Mediation would be insufficient; i. e. The DI­VINE WORD did actually interceed for Man, and plead an adequate Merit in his Favour, immediately upon his Fall or first Transgression. — But then,

[Page 64] Thirdly, LET it be observed, That the expiatory Part of this Mediation which is carrying on between God and Man, consists in yielding perfect Obedience to, and suf­fering the Penalty annexed to, the broken Law; and as the DIVINE WORD (or LOGOS) was incapable of either of these, so he could never plead in Man's Favour the actual Performance and Execution of this fundamental Part of the Mediation: He therefore (as hath been pre­mised) engaged to vindicate the Honour and Authority of the divine Law, by assuming the human Nature into a personal Union with Himself; which, in these Circum­stances, was capable of performing this Part of the Me­diation, of bringing in an everlasting Righteousness, or a Merit adequate to the Offences of all Mankind: — And this Engagement the DIVINE WORD, (or LOGOS) pleaded and represented in Favour of Mankind, till such Time as the Engagement was fulfilled and executed by the Obe­dience and Sufferings of the Man Christ Jesus, personally united to the LOGOS:— Hence He is stiled, The Lamb slain from the Foundation of the World. — But since he hath performed the expiatory Part of the Mediation, He, the Man Christ Jesus, as united to the DIVINE WORD (or LOGOS) ever-liveth to plead the actual Per­formance and Execution; and represent the Worth and Value of it in Favour of Mankind.— And, as the Man Christ Jesus is personally united to the DIVINE WORD (or LOGOS,) so the same Person pleads and represents his perfect Righteousness and bitter Death in our Favour, who pleaded and represented his Engagement to obey and suffer in Favour of Mankind immediately after their Fall. —The DIVINE WORD (or the LOGOS) and the Man Christ Jesus are one Person:—Hence there seems to be a special Propriety in stiling our Mediator (when we con­sider him merely as such) The Man Christ Jesus; or the Man Christ Jesus our Mediator. HE, as united to the DIVINE NATURE, actually performed the expiatory Part [Page 65] of the Mediation between GOD and Man; and tho' the Merit and Value of this was pleaded and represented in Favour of Mankind long before there was such a Man; yet now He (the Man Christ Jesus, as united to the DIVINE NATURE) ever lives to perform this; HE is our merciful and faithful High-Priest in Things pertaining to God, to make Reconciliation for the Sins of the People; for in that HE himself hath suffered, being tempted, HE is able to succour them that are tempted.

IN short, the Man Christ Jesus, as united to the LO­GOS, was in effect the Mediator between God and Men from the Fall of our first Parents. He was such by En­gagement and Promise from the LOGOS; and the Merit and Value of his future Righteousness and Sufferings, were represented in Favour of Man as soon as his fallen Circumstances required any such Recommendation.— If it be inquired, How this Promise and Engagement could be a sufficient Ground of Man's Acceptance with GOD, and what Right the LOGOS had to enter into a Promise and Engagement, in which a Man to be born 4000 Years after, was so directly and immediately concerned?— I answer, That I see no way to solve this, if we allow the LOGOS to be no more than a meer Creature: But if we allow him to be TRUE GOD, the Answer is obvious and easy; for as GOD is unchangeable, and hath all Power, Wisdom and Perfection, so his Promise and Engagement is as safe a Ground to act, believe and hope upon, as actual Performance and Execution: And as to his Right of making such a Promise and Engagement; He had the same Right to do this, that he had to create Man or any other Being.—Besides, as the Man who was so di­rectly and immediately concerned in the Fulfilment of this Promise, was to be personally united to the LOGOS who made it; so the Promise itself was Personal:— The Person that promised, was the Person that should, and has, fulfilled this Promise; which effectually re­moves the supposed Difficulty.

[Page 66]BUT it is objected,

3 ^dly, THAT the human Nature of Christ can never be an effectual Mediator, (according to those your Author opposes,) No, not tho' it were personally united to the divine,— because they deny this human Nature, so united, to have the Knowledge of the secret, mental Prayers, the inward Desires and Distresses of all Christians; or to know any one's Heart: And how then can He be a com­passionate Intercessor in Cases he knows nothing of? &c.

Answer. It is indeed denied, that the human Nature of Christ, tho' personally united to the divine, has an in­herent Knowledge of the Cases and Desires of Christians, or the Hearts of Men, i. e. that Jesus Christ knows all Things merely by virtue of his human Nature:—But it is acknowledged, that the divine Nature knows all Things; and that by virtue of the Union of the human Nature to it, all needed Knowledge is communicated or imparted from the GOD to the Man, to render the latter an effec­tual Mediator, a compassionate Intercessor, a merciful High-Priest and Advocate for us.—No Man in his Senses ever yet pretended, that the Man Christ, who is our Me­diator, could not and did not know the Cases and De­sires, &c. of Mankind: But then it is denied, that he has an inherent Knowledge of these Things.—The Man Christ, who is our Mediator, knows our Cases, Wants, Desires, &c. by virtue of its Union to the divine Nature: And surely your Author could not think his Mediation ineffectual on this Account, viz. because his Knowledge of our Cases, Desires, &c. is not inherent in the human Nature, exclusive of the divine, to which it is united; since, for the very same Reason, he must renounce his own Account of the Mediator: For he supposes that his Knowledge comes by Revelation from GOD; if not universally and at all Times, yet in some Degree, and at some Times, and in particular the Knowledge he had of the Churches of Asia—"If any should ask (says he, Pag. [Page 67] 30.) ‘How Jesus Christ comes to know all that he re­veals in the seven Epistles to the seven Churches, &c. the very first Words of the Book of the Revelations may be an Answer—It was the Revelation which God gave to Jesus Christ, &c.’—He adds, ‘No wonder then, that he says, He knows their Works,—their Hearts,—and their approaching Judgments, when his own vast Abilities are assisted by God's Revelation.’—

AND now let me inquire, How can Christ be an effectual Mediator, if he does not know the Cases, Wants and Desires of his Servants, but by Revelation from ano­ther, even the GOD he mediates with? — Nay further, your Author supposes our Mediator to be inhabited by and related to GOD, in order to this Office: By which Expressions, if he means any Thing, I think it must be this, viz. That He is immediately under the divine In­fluence and Direction; is qualified for and assisted in this Office by GOD himself:—And what Comfort or Hope can we have from this Mediation? The same GOD we address to, must influence, direct and assist the Mediator, by whom we address Him, and thro' whom we hope for Acceptance; and Almighty GOD influences, directs and assists one Creature to mediate with Him in the Behalf of another: And does not this make the Mediation of Christ all meer Form and Ceremony? 'Tis GOD influen­ces, assists and directs in the Mediation;—'tis His Wisdom, Power and Goodness that is employed in the Mediation; and therefore the Mediation is in Effect his own:—It is GOD that mediates with Himself, by Jesus Christ; and no longer Christ that mediates with GOD:—And in this View of the Thing, will it not be proper, when we address to Almighty GOD, to beseech Him in the first Place to in­fluence, direct and assist the Man Christ Jesus to mediate with Him in our Behalf? And yet a Question remains, By whom, or thro' whose Mediation shall we make this necessary Request?—We must go directly and immedi­ately [Page 68] to GOD, and pray Him to direct, assist and reveal our Wants to our Mediator; or enable him to mediate for us: And what is this better than to have no Media­tor? Thus full and plain does your Author's Objection stand against his own Account of the Mediator; and has no Force at all against that which he opposes; because it is not pretended that the Man Christ Jesus is not ac­quainted with our Cases, Wants and Desires by virtue of its Union to the divine Nature, so far as to render him an effectual Mediator and Advocate for us: But that the Man Christ has not this Knowledge inherently, or exclu­sively of the Union of the human to the divine Nature.— The Knowledge of the Man Christ, or Mediator, is com­municated or imparted to him from the divine Nature, or DEITY, by virtue of this Union, in a Manner diffe­rent from what is commonly called divine Revelation, or Inspiration, such as the Prophets and Apostles had:—But what the particular Modes and Properties of this Union are, or in what Manner and Degree the human partakes of the Powers and Properties of the divine Nature, by virtue of it, I shall not pretend to determine; it being vastly a­bove the Reach and Comprehension of my weak, shallow Reason: It is sufficient for my present Purpose, that no­thing your Author has offered in the least militates a­gainst this Account of Christ's Mediation, or at least no­thing but what equally militates against his own.

I SHALL now inquire, whether it be not every way a­greeable to Scripture as well as Reason;—

1 ^st. IT is not pretended, that the Scriptures any where tell us in express Terms, or in just so many Words and Syllables, that there are THREE Persons in the God-head, or ONE divine Essence.—But that the Godhead, or divine Nature, is spoken of under the Notion of three real Dif­ferences, or Distinctions; I think beyond all Contradiction. St John tells us, 1 Epist. 5.7, There are three that bear [Page 69] Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one;—And these three, the Father, the Word, (or Son) and the Holy-Ghost, are frequently spoken of as really distinct from each other.— St. John wishes to the elect Lady, Grace, Mercy and Peace from God the Father; and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father:—And our Saviour tells his Disciples, John 14.26, But the Comforter, which is the Holy-Ghost, whom the Father will send in my Name, &c.—And we are baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy-Ghost; and blessed in their Names distinctly, at the same Time, and separately at different Times: Which both evidence that these Distinc­tions are real; or, that they actually subsist in the divine Nature; and that they equally partake of all divine Per­fections and Attributes: The same Perfections are attri­buted to, and the same Worship and Homage paid, to each of these Distinctions or Differences.—The Father is re­presented and worshipped as GOD supreme; and so is the Son, as hath been largely shewn; and the same might be made to appear of the Holy Ghost. Ananias is charged with lying to the Holy-Ghost, Acts 5.3. It follows in the next Verse, Thou hast not lyed unto Men, but unto GOD; So the Holy-Ghost is said to have dictated the Scriptures, 2 Peter, 1.21. But it's needless to multiply Texts of this Nature.—There is the same Evidence in Scripture, that there is a Son, and an Holy Ghost as that there is a Father; and there is likewise the same Evidence that the Son is GOD, and that the Holy Ghost is GOD, as that the Father is GOD: The same Perfections are attributed, the same Worship is paid to each, distinctly and separately, as to them all, jointly considered, as one divine Essence or Nature.—And now, What shall we call these Distinctions in the one divine Nature or Godhead? They are described as real, as plainly as Words can express: Nothing is more expressly or plainly taught in Scripture, than that [Page 70] these three Distinctions, the Father, Son and Holy-Ghost, do actually subsist in the one God-head or divine Nature. That there is but one God we are sure of, both from Rea­son and Scripture: That there is a Father, a Son, and an Holy-Ghost, the Scriptures likewise assure us: That these Distinctions are not imaginary, but real, is likewise cer­tain: They are represented as real as Peter, John and Paul; for the Father sends the Holy-Ghost in the Name of the Son: And it is moreover evident, that the same divine Perfections and Honours are given to each of these Distinctions; and therefore, since there is but one God­head or Deity, they must all subsist in that.—And since we cannot convey our Ideas without Words, especially in speculative Points; by what Term, Word or Sound, can we convey our Ideas of these Distinctions better, than by calling them Persons?—However, I shall not contend about this particular Word, or Sound: If another can be found by which we can convey our Ideas of these Distinc­tions better, I shall readily embrace it: And if not, I am content to call them, real Distinctions or Differences; and to say, that in the Godhead or Deity there are three real Distinctions or Differences; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; and, to distinguish the Father from the o­ther two, to call Him the first Difference in the Godhead, or Deity; the Son, the second Difference, and the Holy Ghost the third; instead of saying, there are three Per­sons in the Godhead, that the Father is the first Person, the Son the second, and the Holy-Ghost the third.— Words are arbitrary, and often change and lose their Use and Meaning: Men may therefore call these Distinctions by what Names they please;—but the Nature and Truth of Things is not so variable; and therefore, by whatever Names we call, or by whatever Sounds we convey, our Ideas of these Distinctions; it does not, and cannot, de­stroy their Truth and Reality.—Peter and John will be two Men, thô we should call them Paul and Barnabas; [Page 71] or compound and confound their Names together, in one single Word or Term: And there is a Father, a Son and an Holy-Ghost; or three real Distinctions or Differen­ces, in the one divine Nature or Deity, which the Scrip­ture represents by these Terms.—Nor will our giving these new Names, or comprehending them all in one single Word or Term, destroy or alter the Truth and Reality of them: There will still be a Father, a Son and an Holy Ghost: The Father will still be GOD, the Son will be GOD, and the Holy-Ghost will be GOD: That is, these three will still subsist in the one Godhead, or Deity; and equally partake of all divine and incommunicable Per­fections and Attributes: The Father will be infinitely Wise, Powerful, Holy, Just, &c. and so will the Son, and the Holy-Ghost: The Father will be the proper and ulti­mate Object of our religious Worship and Homage; and so will the Son and the Holy-Ghost; and yet there is but one Deity or divine Nature, in which these Perfections dwell, and in whom this Worship and Homage must terminate.

IF it be inquired, How can these Things be? Or ob­jected, That this is talking without Ideas. — I answer, That the particular Nature and Manner of these Distinc­tions or Differences, subsisting in the Godhead or Deity, is a Secret which infinite Wisdom has not discovered to us: — But to disbelieve the Truth and Reality of these Distinctions, when plainly asserted in the Scriptures of Truth, merely on this Account, because the Nature and Manner of them is inscrutable, would be foolish and pre­sumptuous. — When we speak of these, we indeed talk without Ideas so far as the Subject is above our Compre­hension; i. e. We have no just Ideas of the Nature and Manner of these Distinctions or Differences subsisting in the God-head; but we have very clear and distinct Ideas of their Truth and Reality, which the Scripture plainly asserts:— In like Manner, When we speak of the GREAT [Page 72] GOD, we talk without any adequate Ideas of His Nature and Perfections, or Manner of Existence; the Subject is vastly above the Reach and Comprehension of our Rea­son: But we may have very clear and distinct Ideas, and a rational firm Belief of his Being, Power, Wisdom, &c, and with the utmost Propriety discourse of them.— So that our not being able to explain the particular Nature and Manner of these Distinctions or Differences subsisting in the divine Nature, is no reasonable Prejudice against their Truth and Reality: And our not having clear and distinct Ideas of their Nature and Manner of subsisting, is no Argument that we have not clear and distinct Ideas of their Truth and Reality; or that we cannot discourse of them with the utmost Propriety, and believe them upon the Principles of the strictest Reason.— What I intend is this, That the Nature and Manner of a Thing's existing, being above our Reason, is no Argument that the Thing does not really exist; and our not being able to frame just and adequate Ideas of its Nature and Manner of Ex­istence, is no Obstacle to our having clear and distinct I­deas, that it does exist; and consequently, this is no rea­sonable Prejudice against the Truth and Reality of it; or against our believing it, if there be sufficient Evidence to ground our Faith upon, such as the WORD of GOD is generally allowed to be, by professing Christians.—And if this be allowed, as I think it must be, then it can be no unreasonable Thing for us to believe what is commonly called, The Doctrine of the TRINITY in Unity, or that there are three real Distinctions in the Godhead; since the Scripture very plainly represents the Deity under this No­tion, or teaches us, that there is a Father, a Son and an Holy-Ghost, who seperately, and jointly, have divine in­communicable Perfections attributed to them, and religi­ous Worship and Homage paid them; unless some other Reason can be offered why we should not, besides this, that the Nature and Manner of these three Distinctions [Page 73] subsisting in the one God-head or Deity, is above our Com­prehension, and what we can frame no just and adequate Ideas of. But I proceed to say,

2 ^dly, IT is not pretended that the Scriptures any where expressly assert, that the SON of GOD, the divine LOGOS, or the SECOND Distinction or Difference in the Deity, as­sumed a human Soul and Body into a personal Union with Him: But thus much the Scriptures plainly and expressly teach us, that JESUS CHRIST had a Body, and a Soul; and that he is truly GOD, or a divine Person. That Jesus Christ had a true and real Body is indisputable: That he had a Soul or Spirit, such an intelligent, active Principle as is common to all Men, I think none can doubt who read the New-Testament: We find that his Reason, Un­derstanding and Judgment, were gradual or progressive; as is the Case with all Men, however superior and exten­sive they might be: Luke 2.40.52, And the Child grew, and waxed strong in Spirit, or, by the Spirit, filled with Wisdom:—And Jesus increased in Wisdom and Stature, and in Favour with God and Man.—And the same Pas­sions and Affections are found in Him, that are common to all Men; and are the Appendages of human Nature in its Original; such as Love, Joy, Sorrow, Compassion, &c.—He wept over the City of Jerusalem, at a View of their Stupidity, Hardness of Heart and approaching Judg­ments, Luke 19.41.—He loved, and groaned and wept over Lazarus, John 11.33. — And how exceeding sor­rowful, grieved and dejected was he at the Prospect of his own Sufferings, Matth. 26, My Soul is exceeding Sor­rowful, even unto Death.—John 12.27, Now is my Soul troubled, and what shall I say?—Thus it appears beyond all reasonable Contradiction, that JESUS CHRIST had a true Body and a reasonable Soul; or such an intelligent, active Principle as is common to all Men: — And (as hath been largely shewn) the Scripture no less plainly, expressly and distinctly represents Him as true GOD, or a [Page 74] divine Person; as the second Distinction or Difference in the Deity, called by Way of Eminence the SON of GOD: —It attributes such Perfections and Excellencies to Him, and commands, both by Precept and Example, such Wor­ship and Homage to be paid to Him, as we are sure can belong to no Creature, however dignified by Office and Station.—We must therefore conclude, that Jesus Christ has something more than a true Body and a reasonable Soul, or mere Humanity;—something more than common divine Inspiration and Influence, such as the Prophets and Apostles had; — and something more than a dignified Office and Character in the Universe; since none nor all of these, tho' possessed in the highest Degree, could en­title Him to these divine Perfections and Attributes; or this religious Worship and Homage:—In order to these He must be true GOD, a divine Person, eternally and essentially possessed of these Perfections and Excellencies: And if so, JESUS CHRIST has a true human Body, and such an intelligent, active Principle, or Soul, as is com­mon to all Men; and is true GOD, possessed of infinite, divine Perfections; and entitled to religious Worship and Homage: How can we better express our Notion or Idea of this, than by saying, that the SON of GOD, the second Person of the Trinity, or the second Distinction or Difference in the Deity, is personally united to the human Nature; or the human Nature is personally united to that? The same JESUS CHRIST, who is expressly de­scribed, and called Man, is also represented as true GOD, the mighty GOD, the omniscient GOD, the Heart-search­ing GOD, &c.—Nay, further, the GOD and the Man are so far One, that, in some Instances, the Act of the GOD, or Divinity, is attributed to the Humanity; and on the contrary, that of the Humanity, to the Divinity; and of both, to JESUS CHRIST: — See, 1 Tim. 2.5, 6, The Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a Ransom for all. — Acts 20.28, Take heed, — to feed the Church of [Page 75] GOD, which He hath purchased with his own Blood.— Here we see, that the GOD and the Man both claim the same Act, that of Ransoming or Purchasing the Church: The Man gave himself, or shed his Blood, and GOD purchased it with his own Blood. — And, Rev. 5.9, we are told, that CHRIST hath redeemed us by his own Blood. —Now it's difficult for us to express our Notion or Idea of the GOD and Man's being one in JESUS CHRIST, so far as to lay a positive and personal Claim to his Act of shedding his Blood, or giving Himself to suffer for the Redemption of Sinners, better, than by saying, that there is a personal Union of the two Natures, the divine and hu­man in JESUS CHRIST:—Nor will any reasonable Man con­tend with this Manner of expressing it, till he finds a better. —I know that our not being able to explain the Nature and Manner of this Union, is frequently urged as an Ar­gument against the Truth and Reality of it:— But I have already shewn this to be absurd and foolish:—It may as well be urged against the Being of a GOD; yea, and of any Thing else, as against the Truth and Reality of this Doctrine or Proposition, "That JESUS CHRIST is truly Man, and truly GOD;" or, that He has a true Body, a reasonable Soul, (such as is common to all Men, as to it's Nature and Essence, however it may differ in it's extensive Powers and Capacities,) and a divine Na­ture or Substance; since they are so clearly, distinctly and expresly revealed in the Scriptures of Truth. We are not more fully assured of any Thing which the Scripture reveals, and is discoverable no other Way, than we are of this, viz. That JESUS CHRIST is true GOD and Man; for, In Him dwelleth all the Fulness of the God-head bodily, Col. 2.9. GOD did not barely inspire, influence and di­rect Him, (which I suppose is what your Author in­tends by his being inhabited by GOD;) but the Divinity dwelt in Him Bodily, i. e. Personally and Substantially; so as to make HIM true GOD, possessed of all infinite, [Page 76] divine Perfections, and worthy of all religious Homage and Worship. — And this is exactly agreeable to the Apostle Paul's Account of the Mediator, 1 Tim. 2; which your Author pretends is in Favour of his Opinion, and seems desirous to build his Faith upon it.—Indeed if we take only the single Text, which your Author men­tions, Ver. 5, There is one God, and one Mediator be­tween God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus: This seems to make our Mediator a mere Man:—But how unreason­able is it, to take single Texts and Scraps of Scripture, and draw Conclusions from them repugnant to the gene­ral Tenor of Scripture, the Current of the Discourse, from which they are taken, and the true Design of the Texts themselves!—A Conduct which your Author cannot ea­sily be acquitted of in this Instance.—If we take the A­postle's whole Discourse, or first Epistle to Timothy, it will very plainly appear, that he did not design to repre­sent our Mediator as a mere Man: He begins the Epistle with this Account of his Apostleship, that it was by the Commandment of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ:—He next prays to God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, for Mercy and Peace upon his Son Timothy:—In Ver. 11, he stiles the Gospel of Christ, The glorious Gospel of the blessed God; and thanks Christ Jesus, who had counted him Faithful, putting him into the Ministry; and who had enabled him to preach His Gospel:—Verse 16, he tells us, That for this Cause he obtained Mercy, that in him first, JESUS CHRIST (not GOD the Father) might shew forth all Long-suffering, &c:— And Chap. 3 ^d. 16, he tells us. That without Controversy, great is the Mystery of Godli­ness, GOD was manifest in the Flesh: He adds, justified in the Spirit, seen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the World, received up into Glory:— Which shews, that he designed by this to describe our Lord JESUS CHRIST; and his first Characteristic is, That He was GOD manifest in the Flesh:—And Chap ^r. 6.15, [Page 77] he stiles Him, The blessed and only Potentate; the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; who only hath Immortality, &c.—And one would think, after all this, that neither Timothy, nor any other, who read this Epistle, could be in the least Danger of taking JESUS CHRIST for a mere Man, or that St. Paul intended to represent Him as such.

MOREOVER, If our Mediator be a mere Man, or Crea­ture, as your Author supposes, it will be difficult to shew what End his Mediation answers; or what Hope or Comfort we can possibly derive from it, however He be dignified and exalted by his natural Endowments, and appointed Character or Office.— JESUS CHRIST is represented as our Atonement before the injured DEITY; and as our Sacrifice; as being made a Curse for us; as bearing the Chastisement of our Peace: He hath appeared to take away Sin, by the Sacrifice of Himself;—and hath by once offering up Himself, forever perfected those that be­lieve: He came to reconcile the World of Sinners to the offended DEITY, by offering Himself without Spot;— and as by the Transgression of one, many were made Sin­ners; so by the Obedience of one, shall many be made righte­ous:—But how can these Things be effected, any more by the Sufferings and Obedience of CHRIST (if a mere Man, or created Being) than by those of any other Man? His great Endowments, his dignified Office, or any de­rived Excellency cannot qualify Him for it: These will not enable Him to do or suffer any Thing on our Ac­count, by Way of Atonement; because, from him, to whom much is given, shall much be required:—GOD Al­mighty justly expects a Return from every Creature in Proportion to the Powers and Abilities they are endowed with, and the Office and Character they sustain in the Universe: This is evident from natural Reason, and the famous Parable of the Talents:—And therefore, if JESUS CHRIST be a mere Creature, he can do nothing for us, by Way of Atonement with the offended DEITY. — Again, [Page 78] JESUS CHRIST is represented as our Intercessor and Ad­vocate in Heaven; as Him by whom only we can have Access to GOD: — But if a mere Man, of what Service can He be to us there?—What has he to plead that can gain us Audience and Acceptance, to recommend our imperfect Prayers and Services to the DEITY, more than another Man?—His knowing our Cases, Wants and De­sires, and pitying them, can be to no Purpose, in Point of our being heard, accepted and answered by the divine Majesty; for He cannot be a Means of informing HIM who knows all Things: And he has nothing to represent, or plead in our Behalf, if a mere Creature; he hath done no more than was his Duty, and is the Duty of every created Being, viz. to be submissive, resigned and obe­dient to the Will and Pleasure of the Creator, whether it be to do or suffer. To conclude this Head:—According to your Author's Account of the Mediator, we have no rational Grounds to hope for the divine Mercy and For­giveness, thro' his Mediation or Intercession: GOD'S being reconcileable to us, by or thro' CHRIST JESUS, is mere Sound:—We may no longer with any Propriety plead the Merits, the Atonement, the Obedience and Sufferings of CHRIST, before Him, under a Notion or Hope of be­ing heard and answered on their Account:— And, in one Word, We may no longer ask any Thing of Him, in CHRIST'S Name or for his Sake, intending by it, that He would be graciously pleased, in Consideration of what CHRIST hath done and suffered for Sinners, to hear, for­give, and answer us; for Christ is a Creature, as well as we; and at most has done no more than improve and im­ploy the Powers and Faculties, Gifts and Accomplishments bestowed upon him, agreeable to the Will and Pleasure of his Creator.—Thus entirely does your Author subvert the Doctrine and Worth of CHRIST'S Mediation:—Thus does it overthrow the Hope of Christians;—necessitating us to despair of the divine Mercy and Forgiveness; or [Page 79] seek it some other Way, than by and thro' the Merits and Mediation, or Obedience and Sufferings of our Lord JESUS CHRIST.

YOUR Author complains, that as there are two princi­pal distinguishing Doctrines of Christianity, relating to the Unity of the supreme GOD, and the one Mediator with Him, so the Trinitarians have lost them both, among their several Parties, &c.—They who leave Room for a Mediator, destroy the Unity of GOD: — On the other Hand, They who hold true to the divine Unity, or One infinite Being, under three Modes, or Properties, or Re­lations, have no Room for a Mediator, &c.—But sure­ly, it cannot be tho't, that because two different Opinions of the one GOD and one Mediator, are repugnant to your Author's Account of this Matter, therefore both of them are false:— Besides, What could be said, if I should rank the latter of the Parties, your Author mentions, with himself; or call them a Party of Unitarians; and urge how they are divided in their Sentiments of the one GOD and Mediator? They certainly approach as near to your Author's Opinion, as to that of Trinitarians, properly so called; who, tho' they hold that there are three dis­tinct Persons, or real Differences, in the God-head; yet they firmly believe with St. John, That these THREE are ONE; one DEITY, or divine Nature; and therefore, they do not destroy the Unity of GOD, while they leave Room for an able Mediator:— And tho' this should be stiled, Babbling without Ideas; saying what we do not understand, or affirming Nonsense and Contradictions; yet the Faith of a wise Man will stand unshaken, while it has so rational and solid a Basis as that of GOD'S WORD.— And if the Pride and Vanity of some Men carries them into such a wild Extreme, as to make their own Under­standing the Standard of all Truth and Possibility; and turn all into Ridicule that soars above the Reach and Comprehension of their Reason, we should be exceeding [Page 80] cautious how we follow them, least it be at the Expence of Truth; and least, by avoiding what their Pride and Ostentation, their imaginary Wit and Penetration, stiles Nonsense and Contradiction, we should fall into that which is truly such; as all Doctrines that are repugnant to the Word of GOD, are.

THE next Thing your Author flies to is, St. Peter's Description of the Lord JESUS, Acts 2.22, and 36, Ye Men of Israel, hear these Words, Jesus of Nazareth, a Man approved of God among you, &c.— And let all the House of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. —'Tis true in these Words the Apostle is aiming at such a Description of CHRIST, as might strike his Murderers with Horror, and bring them to a true Repentance of their Crime; and therefore he describes Him as to his Humanity; which alone was capable of suffering and be­ing murdered:—To have told his Audience, that they had killed the infinite GOD himself, would have been to the last Degree absurd and foolish; and instead of bring­ing them to a Sense and Repentance of their Crime, would have exposed him to their Ridicule and Scorn:— He therefore tells them, that the Man they had crucified was approved of God among them, by Miracles, Signs and Wonders, which God did by him; and that now God had made the same Man both Lord and Christ; which is not denied:—But in this same Speech he gives plain In­timations, that JESUS CHRIST was not a mere Man, when he refers to the Words of David, concerning Him, The Lord said unto my Lord, &c. Ver. 34. With these Words our Saviour confounds the Pharisees, who answered, that Christ was the Son of David, meaning that he was a mere Man, Mat. 22.42: But, says our Saviour, David cal­led him Lord in Spirit, or by divine Inspiration; and if David call him Lord, how is he his Son? Our Saviour no doubt intended, that this represented Christ, or the [Page 81] Messiah, to be something more than a mere Son of David, or merely a Man; or else it will be difficult to make Sense of what he says, or apply his Words to any wise and ra­tional Purpose: And therefore since St. Peter applies these to CHRIST, in his Description of Him, before his Mur­derers, he might with the utmost Safety direct those of them that were convinced, and inquired, What they should do to be saved? to believe in this Christ, such as he had described Him, and be baptized in his Name; which is both an Evidence and an Acknowledgment of his Divi­nity; it being a most solemn Act of religious Worship, paid to CHRIST personally and immediately, as hath been already shewn.

I SHALL take but a very brief and cursory View of your Author's SECT. III. with which he concludes his Argument; as it cannot possibly be thought to have much Weight in it to support his Cause; and as I have already drawn out this Letter vastly beyond what I at first intended.

1. First then, IT is acknowledged, That GOD and CHRIST, if we hold to the strict Etymology of the Word CHRIST, cannot be properly predicated one of the other; the Name CHRIST, in its primary and most proper Sense, ‘signifies one anointed, and raised by Authority and Ho­nour conferred;’ as we acknowledge the Man Christ Jesus, or the Humanity of our Saviour to be, Heb. 1.9, God, even his God, hath anointed him with the Oil of Gladness above his Fellows:—But we must remember his Name is JESUS, as well as CHRIST; the Import of which we may see, Matth. 1.23, it is Emmanuel, which being inter­preted is, GOD with us: So that if we may not with the strictest Propriety, or agreeable to the Etymology of the Name, call Christ GOD, because it signifies one anointed, &c. yet we may thus stile JESUS CHRIST; for his being called JESUS, imports Him to be Emmanuel, or GOD with [Page 82] us.— ‘But if the Business can be salved here, by sup­posing a personal Union between GOD and CHRIST, or JESUS, and the Anointed; Why may not the Papists set up another such Union between CHRIST'S Body, and the Bread, in the Eucharist; and stoutly defend, that 'tis the Body of Christ properly?’

Answer (1 ^st) BECAUSE there is no such Foundation in Scripture for supposing that the Bread in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ substantially, as that GOD and CHRIST, or the divine and human Natures, are united to each other Personally.—And, (2 ^dly.) Because the Romish Doctrine of Transubstantiation is of a very different Nature from that in dispute: It supposes a real Change of the Substance, contrary to the united Judgment and Testimony of our Reason and Senses; but this cannot be objected in the present Case: There are therefore good Reasons why the Papists cannot maintain or defend the Doctrine of Tran­substantiation with the same Justice and Propriety, that we can the Divinity of our Saviour; or the Union of the divine and human Natures in the Person of JESUS CHRIST.

Secondly. I SHALL not pretend to determine what Use some may have made of the baffled Arguments of Papists, when they wrote against the Unitarians, in Vindication of the Divinity of Christ:—But this I am bold to affirm, that they have no need to do it in one single Instance;—and that they have not done it in the Instances your Author mentions, 1. No one surely at this Day pretends, that the Novelty of Arian Principles is much of an Objection against them, (as the Papists hold that the Novelty of Protestantism is against that:) Alass! They are antique e­nough to claim our Veneration, if that alone was sufficient, having been extant at Times for almost 1500 Years; passed thro' various Changes and fancied Emendations; been once and again suppressed and revived in Europe, Asia and Africa; obtaining sometimes in a very surpriz­ing [Page 83] Manner, thro' that Love of Novelty, which is rooted in our Nature; but have never obtained long at once, to any considerable Degree, in either of those Parts of the World: Allow me to guess the Reason,—That when they become common, and their Novelty ceased to recommend them; when Men come to calm and serious Consideration, they easily see their Fallacy and dangerous Tendency, and quickly rejected them. This is the Novelty objected per­haps by some against your Author's Opinion, which cer­tainly is no Commendation to it; and I humbly trust, (if nothing else will do it) that this will prevent its obtain­ing long, and to any great Degree in New-England. — 2. It is judged, That our Saviour's being stiled, the Image of God, is no Argument that He is not GOD; and yet 'tis thought at the same Time a probable Argument, That the Fathers did not look upon the Elements to be changed into the real Substance of CHRIST'S Body and Blood, in the Sense which Papists hold, because they oft call them the Images thereof. There is too manifest a Difference between these Propositions, to need any Illustration: It is not supposed, That CHRIST is called the Image of GOD with respect to his Humanity; for that can bear but a faint Resemblance to the DEITY, to which nothing may be likened or compared; but that He is the Image of GOD, i. e. of the Father, in respect of His Divinity: The second Distinction or Difference in the DEITY is the express Image of the first. On the other Hand, The Papists suppose the Elements to be transubstantiated or changed into the real Substance of CHRIST'S Body and Blood; but had the Fathers thought so, they could with no Propriety have called them the Images thereof. CHRIST is called the Image of GOD in opposition to GOD the Father; but the Papists leave nothing to oppose the Image to.

3. Thirdly, In Opposition to the Papists, 'tis tho't evident, That St. Peter was inferior to the Church, and the rest of the Apostles (tho' not singly to each,) [Page 84] because he was sent up and down by them: — And yet it is no Argument that the Son is inferior to the Father, in Opposition to Trinitarians, because he was sent by Him. — Here again, is a manifest Difference in the Position and Circumstances of the Arguments: — It is not the Nature and Essence, but the Office and Authority of St. Peter, that is in dispute: 'Tis argued, that in Office and Authority he was inferior to the Church, and the rest of the Apostles, because they sent him up and down authoritatively: — On the other Hand, the Na­ture and Essence of the SON, is in dispute; and 'tis hum­bly tho't, that it can be argued with no Propriety that the SON was inferior to the FATHER in these, merely be­cause He was sent by Him: e. g. A Son may be as truly a Man as the Father, and yet be sent by him; or two, that equally partake of human Nature and all it's Pro­perties, may send each other by mutual Agreement.

4. Fourthly, THERE can be no just Grounds for your Author's Complaint, "That Trinitarians join with the Papists in hood-winking People in Ignorance; forbidding them to enquire into and examine your Author's Princi­ples." — I can't think that any Protestant will inveigh against the closest Examination and Enquiry into any of the Principles and Doctrines of our holy Religion; and especially the more important and fundamental Points of it.— For my own Part, I heartily wish your Author's Opinion may meet with this Treatment wherever it goes; as I humbly think it will prove a most effectual Means of securing Men against it.—I therefore intreat all Men, closely to examine, and seriously to consider it, in all it's Parts, before they embrace it.—

5. Fifthly, How just your Author's Claim is to pri­mitive Antiquity, is what I cannot determine; nor what poor Apologies have been made for those Fathers who seem to have favour'd his Principles: — This can be no ways material; since our Faith is not, and ought not, [Page 85] to be built upon the Opinion of the Fathers, or, Tradition of the Elders; but, upon that surer Word of Prophesy, and Inspiration, the HOLY SCRIPTURES:— Upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, JESUS CHRIST Himself being the Chief Corner-Stone.— However, It is generally allowed, that Arius a Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, about Anno Domini 320, was the first who reduced your Author's Principles to a regular Sys­tem; or set them up in Opposition to those who hold to the supreme DEITY of JESUS CHRIST: —His Princi­ples were immediately condemn'd for Heresy, by a Council under Alexander Bishop of Alexandria; and afterwards, Anno 325, by three Hundred and eighty Fa­thers in the General-Council of Nice.— After which, the Disciples of Arius divided into several Parties:— Some held, That the Son was made ex non entibus; and that He was in all Respects unlike the Father: Others held, That the Son was like the Father, and begot of his Sub­stance; tho' not Co-eternal with Him, &c. In the sixth Century it was carried into Africa, under the Vandals; and into Asia, under the Goths; Italy, the Gauls, and Spain, were also deeply infected with it:—But having reigned thirty Years with great Splendor, it sunk almost all at once.— After which it made no great Noise in the World, till Anno 1531, Servetus, a Spaniard, wrote a small Treatise against the Mystery of the Trinity; which gave Occasion, after his Death, to the forming a new System of Arianism in Geneva; the Admirers of which presently degenerated into Socinians, who are likewise di­vided into several Parties; some leaving Socinus, as to what regards the Worship to be offered to Jesus Christ; not being able with all their Penetration, added to the subtle Reasoning of their Master, and all that have since appeared to support his Cause, to see how divine Wor­ship should be given a mere Man. See Chamb. Dict. Art. Arianism and Socinianism.

[Page 86]FROM this general View, it appears, your Author will not gain much by appealing to Antiquity, the Fathers, and the genuine History of his Principles.

HE thinks, ‘The Fathers were more likely to attribute too much, than too little, to Jesus Christ, as he was, and is deservedly a beloved Object, &c.’

Answer. THEY were at most but fallible, imperfect Men:—Besides, we must consider them either as Wise and Honest, or Ignorant and Deceitful: If they were Ignorant or Deceitful, either not understanding the Na­ture and Truth of the Cause they were engaged in; or disposed to betray it; their Testimony, one Way or the other, is not to be regarded: And if they were Wise and Honest, understanding the Cause and Truth of Christianity, and were real, sincere Friends to it; they would have endeavoured to represent Things in their true Light; to preach and recommend the naked unadulterated Truth, and have carefully guarded against Error on every Side; and especially in fundamental important Points; such as the present confessedly is: When they come to describe our Lord JESUS, the Author of this Religion, one would think they should have studied for the exactest Truth; and have been as careful not to attribute too much, as too little, to Him; and to be sure not to attribute that to Him, which belongs to GOD only, if he is not GOD; since it is no less dishonoring and affronting to Almighty GOD, to raise a mere Creature to an equality with Him, than it is to debase the Lord JESUS, by esteeming and represent­ing Him as a mere Creature, if He be GOD supreme.—The Truth of the Case (I am ready to think) is, That it was much with the Fathers, as with their Sons of the present Day; they generally professed to build their Faith or re­ligious Principles upon divine Revelation; in order to which, some wisely examin'd the whole Current and Tenor of Scripture, before they drew up an absolute determinate Conclusion; others, of a more sudden Resolution and [Page 87] hasty Genius, considered only particular Texts and Phra­ses; such perhaps as favoured some darling Prepossession, and formed their Opinion with less Thought and Delibe­ration: And though the former were by much the fairest Candidates for Truth, and to be depended upon with the most Safety; yet they were all fallible; their Writings are not the Standard of Truth, nor the Rule and Measure of our Faith, while we have the Words of Inspiration; which are profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Cor­rection, for Instruction in Righteousness; that the Man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good Works: And which we are, or ought to be, as capable of examining and understanding as our Fathers have been; and have as good a Right to judge and determine for ourselves, as they had.—

THUS I have gone through with my intended Obser­vations upon your Author's Inquiry into the Scripture Account of JESUS CHRIST; and designedly omitted no Part of his Reasoning, that can possibly be tho't material: I am, however, far from thinking that I have offered all the Arguments which can be produced against his Opi­nion; or set off those I have offered to the best Advan­tage: But I humbly imagine, they carry so much of Truth in them, as entirely to overthrow and confute whatever your Author has opposed to them; and effec­tually secure every honest, considerate, unprejudiced Per­son, who reads them, even in their present Dress, against his Opinion. I can't but hope, these Hints, imperfect as they are, contain proper Grounds of Conviction; and that having these laid before you, agreeable to your Pro­mise in the Dedication, you will readily alter your Opini­on: — If this should be the Case, I am tar from desiring a publick Confession, or Declaration of Gratitude;—The Thought of having been the Means of turning one from the Error of his Way, will be a sufficient Reward to me. [Page 88] —If you should answer this by a profound Silence, judg­ing it to be superficial, and to carry its own Confutation with it; and to be utterly unworthy either of public or private Notice, one Way or another,—I have the Satis­faction of reflecting on my own good Design; and of thinking that such a sullen, ill-natured Silence, but poorly supplies the Place of solid Reason and Argument; and that at least some others are of the same Opinion.—If, on the other Hand, you should think this deserving of an Answer, and capable of a Refutation, I shall endeavour, with the utmost Candor and Impartiallity, to read and consider it;—lay myself open to Conviction; and yield the Point with Joy and Gratitude, whenever I see an over-balance of fair Reasoning, against my present Opi­nion.—If you should not chuse to dispute the Point, (as I pray may be the Case, for Disputes of this Nature rarely tend much to promote the Cause of Religion) but should find some Things unsatisfactory to you in Point of Ar­gument, I shall endeavour, upon Information, to re­move your Difficulties and Objections with the utmost Pleasure and Satisfaction.—After all, I can't but appre­hend that your procuring a new Impression of your Au­thor's Inquiry, will fail of that good Effect, which you profess to hope for from it; and declare to be the great Inducement which moved you:—Granting that it should be universally embraced and believed;—Where is the great Service done to the Cause of Christianity?— Will any Person by this, be made a better Subject to his King; a more useful Member of Society; or more pious and devout towards his GOD? Indeed if it be the Truth, Men ought to know it, and believe it; and Truth can never injure that Religion which is founded upon it; and which is, or ought to be, supported by it: — But we should be well assured, that we have Truth on our Side, before we attempt to bring about such Revolutions and Changes in Religion, as this Tract must make, if uni­versally [Page 89] imbraced in New-England.—We should also be assured, that this Truth more or less affects the Essentials of Religion; that the eternal Salvation of Mankind is affected by it, before we can be excused in such an At­tempt: But surely true Unitarian Charity, which extends to all Men, at least to all Denominations of Christians, would not suffer you to judge thus of the Point before us, that it is a sine qua non; or absolutely necessary to e­ternal Life, that Men believe with your Author:—And therefore the Importance of the Subject, in the Light which Unitarians commonly consider it in, will but poor­ly excuse you in so glaring and dangerous an Attempt, as a Revival of this old Controversy, in this new World, evidently is. — In short, if you closely adhere to the Principles, which you have so generously taken under your Patronage, I see no Way that you can excuse your­self for diffusing them abroad, with such a profuse Libe­rality, and Air of Challenge, any more than a serious Atheist could excuse himself for publickly calling in Ques­tion the Being of a GOD; and pleading with great Zeal and Earnestness, that there is no supreme, wise and in­telligent Being, who made and governs the World, and to whom we are accountable for our Behaviour:—Such an one might plead that he had Truth of his Side; but he could not justly plead the least Prospect that this Truth would be of any Service to Mankind, tho' vindicated by ever so specious an Appearance of Demonstration:— The same holds good with Regard to true Unitarians:— They can't, consistent with their own Principles, pretend that the denying or not believing the Divinity of JESUS CHRIST, will be of any great Service to Mankind, or to the Cause of Christianity; because they hold that all Christians are agreed in the essential Points.—I can't therefore but suspect, either that you are not well ac­quainted with the Principles you espouse; or that some other Motive, than a true Love to the Cause of Christia­nity; [Page 90] and a sincere Desire to promote it, induced you to such an Attempt:—Charity obliges me to hope that the former of these is the Case; and that when you come to a more calm and serious Consideration of your Principles, if you do not renounce them, yet, that you will think it of less Importance to the Cause of Christianity, that all Men embrace them.—Not that I at present fear that your utmost Efforts to maintain and diffuse them, will be at­tended with a general Success: But it is my sincere De­sire, that this Controversy may stop here; as it's of such a Nature as to admit of no determinate Decision, beyond all Possibility of Contradiction on either Side:—For in Disputes of this Kind, an ambitious, subtle Wit will ne­ver want nice Distinctions to evade the Truth, and cover over Falshood with the Appearance of it.

IT may perhaps be thought by some, That I have con­tributed to the Revival of this Dispute:—That a pro­found Silence would have been the most prudent Answer to your Author, and your own Challenge:—That the former hath been repeatedly answered already:—That the Dispute is endless, &c.—But I humbly beg Leave to dissent from such; (1.) Because Silence would undoubted­ly bring the Cause I maintain under Suspicion, with many of the unlearned and unstable Multitude. (2.) Whatever Answers may have been made to this Tract already, they are not common as this now is among us; and therefore tho' vastly superior to what I have offered, can be of no immediate Service to this Part of the World. (3.) Tho' this Dispute is in a Sense endless, as it cannot at present be determined beyond all Possibility of Contradiction; yet when a Point so important, as that of our blessed SAVIOUR'S DIVINITY is generally esteemed to be, comes to be called in Question, denied, and laughed at; I think it becomes those who sincerely believe it, to lend their seasonable Assistance to support and maintain it, in Pro­portion to their Ability and Sphere in Life; and tho' it [Page 91] be not capable of absolute Demonstration; yet a rational Vindication of it, especially at such a Time, can't but be of Service to the Cause of Religion, by the divine Bles­sing: The Lord JESUS grant these imperfect Hints may have this happy Effect, tho' offered by one of the least of those who adore His DEITY. In short, I humbly imagine that, in Consideration of the Manner and Cir­cumstances of the Dedication and Tract itself, should it pass un-noticed in this public Manner, the vulgar Opinion will be, that it's unanswerable, at least as to our Teachers and spiritual Guides.—These Considerations induced me to an Attempt, which more properly belongs to my Su­periors in Ability: — And an earnest Desire, and secret Hope, that some one, more equal to the Task, would have engaged in it; has delayed this Epistle for some Weeks: And should any one be engaged, or disposed to engage, I am far from desiring to monopolize the Dis­pute; but shall be heartily glad of their kind Assistance, whether it ceases here, or is carried on further.

TO conclude; THIS is not wrote for Dispute sake; but with a sincere Love to, and honest Desire of, promoting and vindicating Truth, and the Cause of Christianity:— And should the Dispute be prolonged; I heartily join with your Author, in wishing, That it may be carried on with Moderation and Christian Charity: That all Wrath, Malice, Envyings and Revilings, may be laid aside; and that Truth, sacred Truth, may be every Man's Aim. — I pray GOD to deliver both Parties from that ostentatious Strife of Words, those ill-natured Censures, bitter Reflections and uncharitable Railings, which are truly a Reproach to our Nature, a Scandal to our christian Profession, an Injury to pure and undefiled Religion, and a Grief and Offence to all good Men:—

SHOULD any one attempt, a further Vindication of your Author's Principles, in a fair and rational Manner, I hope there are none among us, but will give it a can­did [Page 92] and impartial Consideration: — But should any one, in order to this, supply the Place of solid Arguments, with barbarous Criticisms, and pert witty Reflections upon his Opposers; studying to turn their Opinion and Arguments into Ridicule and Banter, instead of giving them a fair Confutation; insinuating, That there is as good a Foundation for affirming, that there are Four as Three Persons in the God-head; That we may, with as much Propriety, stile the Virgin Mary, God, or Goddess the Mother, as Jesus Christ, God the Son; reflecting upon all his Opposers as Babblers of Nonsense and Con­tradiction, and the like; such an one, I say, whether a Layman, or D. D. tho' he might shine and blaze a while like the Son of the Morning, would quickly draw upon himself the Contempt of the bad, and the Pity of the good: All Men of Reason and sober Thought would despise him, for studying to render that ridiculous, which, how­ever false, foolish and groundless some may think it to be, ought to be treated in the most serious Manner, 'till it is shewn to be so: But I hope, and pray, that nothing of this Nature will ever appear. Good Sense and sound Reason I desire to attend to, wherever I see it; and who­ever it comes from:—But Cant and Banter should be abhor'd by all Men, especially in Things of a religious Na­ture and Importance.—

THE Lord prepare us all for that State and World, where Paul and Barnabas shall eternally agree: Where all Strife and Controversy shall cease; and, where we shall no more dispute who and what our glori us MEDIATOR is; but shall see Him as He is: To HIM be Glory both now and evermore. AMEN.