God when he fays, "I will not give my glory to another;" it might be anfwered, The angel who has received the government of this world, has a glory peculiar to himself, exclufive of other intelligences, and poffeffes this glory in oppofition to idols, which are vanity. It might be further fuppofed, that the true God has granted him the power of communicating to another, fo much of his empire as he pleafes; and, therefore, he could impart it to Jefus Chrift, as the true God did to him.-Now I leave our adverfaries to judge, whether it would be eafy for them to force me in thefe entrenchments, which they have prepared; and to confider, of what vaft importance it is, never to deprive the terms of Scripture of their natural significa tion. Becaufe if we once take the liberty of affixing new ideas, to the words God, worship, and fuch like expreffions, we deftroy all certainty in the anology of faith and in the facred Scripture, and abandon ourselves to perpetual fcepticifm.

As Jehovah is the God of truth, it cannot be fuppofed, without flocking impiety, that he ever defigned to betray us into error, by fpeaking to us in ambiguous and deceitful language. If, then, fuch a procedure would be confidered as contrary to his eternal truth; it is no lefs inconfiftent with his wisdom, nor less derogatory to the dignity of his Revelation, to speak in language that is abfurd and ridiculous. Yet fuch is the language of the Bible, in many places, if understood according to the principles of our oppofers.

What expreffions, for inftance, can be more ridiculous than thefe, if Christ be a mere man, honoured with the name, GOD, on account of his miniftry?" He was "made of the feed of David, according to the flesh?" What is the meaning of the term, flesh? If you underftand it, as oppofed to fpirit, the fenfe of the paffage will be, He was made of the feed of David, according to the body; not according to the foul. A goodly way of fpeaking, this, for Gamaliel's pupil, for Chrift's

apoftle to use! Alexander had a body and a foul; yet all would unite in pronouncing that man contemptibly weak, who fhould fay; Alexander was made of the feed of Philip, according to the flesh. Nay, the language would be abfurd in the mouth of one, who believes the conqueror of the world to be the fon of Jupiter. For -fuch an one fhould fay; Alexander was not the fon of Philip: not, He was the fon of Philip, according to the Afb. It may, perhaps, be faid, Thefe words," according to the flesh," are oppofed, not to the nature of Chrift, but to his heavenly offices and divine miniflry: and the meaning is, Jefus was made of the feed of David, not as he is God, or as he is honoured with a divine ministry; but as he is man, or poffeffed of a corporal nature.' But Peter was the fon of Zebedce, not as an apostle, but as a man; his apostleship being a divine office, and coming immediately from God. Yet this propofition, Peter was made of the feed of Zebedee, according to the flesh, would be ridiculous. The text

under confideration may imply, that Jefus Christ had a nobler origin than other men, having been conceived by the Holy Spirit.' But it is not the power by which, but the matter of which, he was made, that is intended by these words, "He was made, according to the flesh;" Again: Jefus was made of the feed of David, and made flesh, by the power of the Holy Ghoft. This propofition, therefore, "He was made of the feed of David, "according to the flesh;" is, in the fenfe of Scripture, equivalent to this, He was made of the feed of David, according to the flesh, by the Holy Ghoft. And if fo, we are still at a lofs for the meaning of," He was made, "according to the flesh" For if Christ be a mere man, by nature, thefe expreffions, "according to the flesh," are perfectly ridiculous.

Equally abfurd, on the Socinian hypothefis, is that celebrated faying of our Lord's; " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own felf, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." If

you expound thefe words, of the glory which Jefus had in the Divine decree; you render the expreffions abfurd, being contrary to the common forms of speech. For it

is as if a man fhould fay; ' Give me, Lord, the health which I had with thee before the world was- -Feed me, O Father, with my daily bread, with which I was fed in thy prefence before the world was created• Grant, O gracious God, that I may fafely arrive at that celeftial place, where I was with thee before the ⚫ foundation of the world.'-Many other inftances might be adduced of that ridiculous air which the Socinian fentiment gives to the language of inspiration, but these may fuffice.

The fame perverfe hypothefis renders the language of Scripture impious and blafphemous. This impiety has various degrees. For inftance; The facred writers, when fpeaking of Jefus Chrift, take no care to avoid fuch expreffions as might give occafion to blafphemy. Of which number are these, God; equal with God; the Creator of all things; worship, and others of a fimilar kind, which were never piously used but to express the glory of the Eternal Sovereign.-Again: They repres fent Jefus Chrift as using these expreffions, in connection with others, which imply an exceffive and criminal familiarity with God, if he be not of the fame effence with him. As when he calls himself, the Son, the own Son, and the only Son of God; afferting, that God is his Father, not occafionally, and fo as to intimate that he claims the divine relation only in a figurative fenfe but frequently, in the most folemn difcourfes, and that without any limitation: faying, my Father, when an apoftle would have faid, my God; plainly fignifying, that he affumes the exalted title in a literal and proper fenfe. Further: This impiety appears, to a fhocking degree, in the writers of the New Teftament placing a creature on an equality with the Creator, by fuch expreffions as thefe "He thought it not robbery to "be equal with God-Philip, he who hath feen me,

As if he who beholds the

hath feen the Father." glimmering of a glow-worm, faw the fplendor of the meridian fun! And by attributing to Jefus, a mere man, the fame authority as they do to the Father, in the great commiffion which was given to the apostles. "Go ye, “therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy "Ghoft." As if one fhould fay, Go and enrol the people by the order of the king and his flave!-A still further degree of impiety confifts in this; When the penmen of Scripture exprefs the honour which is due to Jefus Chrift, they do it by the general term worship, without ever giving the least intimation that it means a fubordinate worship, or that there is any fuch thing: though, on the principles of our opponents, there is as great a difference between fupreme and fubordinate adoration, as there is between the Creator and the creature; and though it be certain, that if a man should frequently give the title of majesty to any one but the king, he would be highly culpable in the eye of his fovereign, whatever mental diftinction he might make between fupreme and fubordinate majefty; because terms have their fignification principally from general custom, not from the particular fancy of the perfon who uses them: Once more: The apostles inveft a mere creature with the qualities, and attribute to him the works, of the great Creator. Nay, which is carrying impiety to the highest degree, if the hypothesis of our opposers be true, they boldly apply to a mere man the fublimest oracles of the Old Teftament; thofe oracles which were intended to exprefs, in the most emphatical manner, the infinite glories of the Moft High. But this argument fhall be the fubject of the following Section.

188

SECTION IV.

If JESUS CHRIST be not of the fame effence with his Father, there is no harmony between the prophets and the apoftles, or between the Old Teftament and the New,

CHAPTER I.

If JESUS CHRIST be not of the fame effence with his Father, the Prophets, who spake of him, did not foresee things as they were to come to pass.

As S the religion of Jefus depends on the teftimony of the prophets, and on that of the apoftles, united; it is abfolutely neceffary, for the confirmation of our faith, that these teftimonies fhould agree and mutually fupport each other. An hypothefis, therefore, which destroys that agreement which ought to subsist between the pen men of the Old, and the writers of the New Teftament, faps the foundations of Christianity. Such is the fyftem of those who maintain, that Jefus Christ is a mere creature. For if that fentiment be true, the Spirit, by whose inspiration the prophets wrote, neither foretold, nor forefaw things as they were to come to pafs under the gospel-dispensation; nor did that Spirit, whom the apostles received and by whofe direction they fpake, understand the oracles of the Old Teftament. To prove the former of these propofitions, we need only confider, In what manner the prophets describe the true