2. I obferve, that he seems to be aware that the paffage of fcripture, Phil. ii. 6. where it is said, that Chrift being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, ftands in his way, fince it exprefsly afferts Chrift's equality with God; and therefore he attempts to remove it, by faying, that that translation, he thinks, is given up by most learned men, because it correfponds not to the original Greek. Who those learned men are that have given it up he does not tell us, nor point out in what it does not correfpond to the original Greek. Arians and Socinians have quarrelled with it, but learned Trinitarians have stiffly defended it: however, this dialogue-writer « thinks it must be wrong,

(1.) Because it no way fuits the context, which fpeaks of " the fame perfon "in the fame image or likeness of God, as obedient to God and exalted by him." But what this author obferves, is a reason why it fhould be right, and not wrong; for if Chrift was in the form of God, av mogen der, in the effential form of God, for no other can be intended; if he exifted in the nature and effence of God, was arrayed with the fame glory and majefty, and poffeffed of the fame perfections, he must be equal to him; nor could it be thought by Chrift, nor should it by any other, a robbery, to affert his equality with him; for, as to be in the form of a fervant, is to be really and truly a fervant; to be in the likeness of a man, and to be in fashion as a man, is to be really and truly man; fo to be in the form of God, is to be really and truly God: and if Chrift is really and truly God, he is equal with the Father. And whereas in the context he is reprefented as obedient unto death, not unto God, as this author inadvertently expreffeth it, and exalted by God; these things are evidently said of him as man, and express both his humiliation and exaltation in the human nature; and no ways contradict his equality with the Father in the divine nature.

(2.) Another reason why this tranflation is thought to be wrong, is, "because "it is contradictory to the reafon God has given us, as our highest guide, to "conceive that the Son, who was begotten by the Father, came from him, "has his life, power, dominion, glory, as a gift and reward from him, should "be equal to him." I take no farther notice of this man's great encomium of reason, than just to observe, that whatever guide reafon is to us in things natural and civil, it is a very poor one in religious affairs, in things which concern our spiritual and eternal welfare, being fo wretchedly corrupted by fin: however, one would think, in matters of revelation, the revelation itself, the scriptures of truth, fhould be a higher guide to us than reason, especially the Spirit of God, who in them is promised to guide us into all truth. But what contradiction is it even to reafon, to conceive that the Son, begotten by the Father, fhould be equal to him? Was fuch a thing never known in nature, that a Son was equal VOL. II.

to

to a Father? And why fhould it be thought contradictory to reafon, that the only begotten Son of God, who is the brightness of his Father's glory, the exprefs image of bis perfon, in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells, fhould be equal to God? His coming from God, and having his life, power, dominion and glory from him, as a gift and reward, and all thofe fcriptures which speak of them as fuch, are to be understood of him in his office-capacity and relation, as he is man and mediator; and not of him as a divine perfon, as God over all, bleffed for ever; who, as fuch, does not derive his being, life and glory from another, but equally enjoys them with his Father, without derivation.

(3.) A third reafon given is, "because it is a sense contrary to all those plain "texts which speak of Chrift as the exprefs image of the Father, as commiffioned by him, as doing his will, &c." I reply, that this fenfe is not at all contrary to those scriptures which speak of Christ as the image of God, but perfectly accords with them; fince Chrift is the effential image of God, and as fuch partakes of the fame nature, effence, perfections and glory with his Father, and therefore must be equal to him. As for thofe fcriptures which speak of him as commiffioned by the Father, doing his will, feeking his glory, praying to him for his original glory; and, as appointed by him univerfal head and judge, these are to be understood of him as Man and Mediator, and fo are no contradiction to his equality with God in the divine nature. This writer sets himself, with all his might, against this great truth of the Son's equality with the Father; but is it to be wondered at, when he even poftpones Jefus Chrift to the apostles Peter and Paul, and that more than once in this dialogue? Speaking of the fruits of the Spirit "they are, fays he', fuch as we find in the life and fermons of "St Paul and of his master Jefus Chrift." And in another place", "the Jews "did fo, that is, fet up their judgment against their teachers, in following Peter "and Paul, and Jefus Chrift."

3. Whereas it is obferved to him what Chrift fays, John x. 30. I and the Father are one: he replies ", "would you have Chrift contradict himself in the "fame breath, by faying, we two perfons are one person, one Being, one God? "The easy, natural and juft fenfe, he says, is, that he and the Father were "one, as he did the Father's will and acted by commiffion from him, and pur"fued the fame end and defign; and not to be understood of his unity of effence, "for he cannot think that a begotten and an unbegotten effence are the same.” To which I answer, that though there are two perfons spoken of in this "text as being in fome fenfe one, I, as one Perfon, and MY FATHER as another Perfon; yet we do not say that the meaning is, that these two Persons are one Perfon, this would be a contradiction; but that these two Perfons are of one and the fame

' Dialogue, p. 6, 7.

m Ibid. p. 16.

n Ibid. p. 12, 13.

fame nature, which is no contradiction. This writer thinks, that to understand the words of unity of will, or rather of doing the Father's will, beft fuits the context; whereas Chrift, in the context, is fpeaking not of unity of will, but of fameness of operation, and of his having the fame power the Father has, to keep his sheep from perifhing, which he proves from their being ONE; and from whence should fameness of power arife, but from fameness of nature? Nor is the effence of the Son begotten, and the effence of the Father, as diftinct from that of the Son, unbegotten, none ever thought or faid fo, that I know of. The Father, as a divine Perfon, begets; the Son, as a divine Person, is begotten in the divine nature and effence; but that nature or effence is not begotten, but in both the fame. This man calls himself a Churchman; did he pay any regard, as he does none, to the Articles of the Established Church, he might obferve this doctrine, he is militating against, fully expreffed in them: in the first Article are thefe words," in unity of this Godhead there be three Perfons of one fubftance, 66 power and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft." The beginning of the second Article runs thus: "the Son, which is the word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one fubStance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin, "of her fubftance."

66

66

66

66

4. This writer seems very defirous, that "perfons, under a notion of speaking honourably of the Son, would be careful of eclipfing the glory of the Father, and of dishonouring him, by setting up a rival with him in fupreme empire, and of affronting and displeasing the Son, by belying him, as the Jews did, when they said he made himself equal with God." But what danger can there be of leffening or fullying the Father's glory by afferting the Son's equality with the Father? Nothing is taken from the Father and given to the Son; the same things are said of the one as of the other; the same nature, perfections and glory are afcribed to the one as to the other; nor need we fear affronting and displeasing either the Father or the Son, by giving equal honour to them; fince as the Son has thought it not robbery to be equal with God, God has declared it is his will, that all men fhould honour the Son as they honour the Father; which is done by afferting that they are of one and the fame effence, substance and eternity; and are what may be understood by the words co-effential, con-fubftantial, co-eternal: though this writer calls them great fwelling words, hard and unintelligible names. That the Jews belied Chrift, when they said he made himself equal with God, does not appear; our Lord never charged them with belying him, nor did he go about to convince them of a lie or a

mistake; but afterwards faid thofe things which were enough to confirm them, and any one else, in the truth of his equality with the Father.

5. This man laughs, as thofe of his complection generally do, at myfteries in religion, and at this doctrine being a mystery, though revealed, and as being above, though not contrary, to reafon: he fays', that "if any doctrine was a "mystery before, revealing it has made it no longer a mystery." It is true, that when a thing is revealed, it is no longer a mystery that it is, but may still remain a mystery bow it is, what it is: as in the cafe before us, it is no longer a mystery, now revealed, that the three perfons, Father, Son and Spirit, are one God; but how they are fo, is ftill a mystery. The incarnation of Chrift, God manifeft in the flesh, is not a thing hidden from us, being revealed; but how the word was made flesh, will ever continue a mystery to us. It is no longer a mystery, that the living will be changed at Chrift's fecond coming; but how they will be changed, is a mystery to us. So the refurrection from the dead is a certain part of revelation; nevertheless, it is myfterious to us how it will be brought about; and our ideas of rifing from the dead, and living again, muft be greatly fhort of the things themselves: though this author fays, he "very "well understands what rifing from the dead and living again means, as well "as he does rifing from fleep and living again." I fuppofe he would have said, being awake again, means; for I hope he does not think that men are dead when asleep, and come to life again when they rife out of it. Thefe doctrines instanced in are above our reason, and feem as contrary to our ideas of things, and the dictates of reason, as what we have been confidering may be thought to be. I go on,

II. To confider what he has to fay to the doctrine of eternal Election, though he chiefly militates against that of Reprobation. Our author's harangue upon this head is mere plagiarifm, being stolen out of Dr Whitby upon the Five Points, as any one may eafily obferve, by comparing it with the fecond chapter of his first difcourfe concerning Election and Reprobation, and many other paffages in that performance; and fince I have lately confidered the arguments and reasonings of that writer, I might at once difmifs this fubject, by referring the reader to the answer I have already given; but as that may not be in the hands of every one to whom this may come. I choofe to take fome notice of what is here advanced. The fum of the charge against this doctrine is, that it is unmerciful, unjuft, infincere, and uncomfortable."

1. It is charged with cruelty and unmercifulness; God is faid to be", according to this doctrine, "a moft cruel Being, and more hard-hearted than Pharaoh;” but

1

W

but I hope it carries no mark of cruelty and unmercifulness in it to the elect, who are veffels of mercy afore prepared unto glory: it can only be thought to do fo to the rest, for whom God has ordained no help; and to raise the idea of cruelty towards them, they are represented under the lovely characters of God's offspring, his creatures, and his children; but not a word faid of their rebellions, fins and tranfgreffions, or of their being "the children of wrath, the chil"dren of hell, and the children of the Devil;" and to increase this idea, they are confidered * as in distress and mifery, in a perifhing condition, through fome misfortune, and not upon the account of any fin or iniquity they have been guilty of. With the fame view their number is taken notice of; "the human "race is faid to be infinite, and help decreed only for a very few; whilst God "has refolved not to help millions of undone creatures, and to torment them "millions of years and ages, for what they could not help; and this only to

fhew what his power and wrath can do, or from pure ill nature." But fuppofing God had decreed help for none of the infinite race of his fallen offspring, as this author calls them, but had determined to leave them all, being fallen to the perversity of their hearts and ways, and to punish them for their fins and tranfgreffions committed againft his righteous law; would this have been deemed cruelty and unmercifulness? Has he not proceeded in such a manner with the whole body of the apoftate angels, thofe millions of undone perishing creatures, whom he has refolved not to help, and who are equally his offspring, his creatures, and his children, as the fallen race of Adam, fo confidered? And is this. ever esteemed cruelty, and pure ill nature? Now if it was not acting the cruel and unmerciful part, not to ordain help for any of the fallen angels, it would not have been acting fuch a part, had God refolved not to help any of the fallen race of Adam; and if it would not have been an act of cruelty to have determined not to help any of the race of mankind, furely it can be no act of cruelty or unmercifulness to ordain help for fome of them, when he could in juftice have condemned all. The doctrine of Election is no unmerciful one, yea, it is more merciful than the contrary fcheme, fince it infallibly fecures the falvation of Some; whereas the other does not ascertain the falvation of any fingle perfon, but leaves it uncertain, to the precarious and fickle will of man.

>

2. This doctrine is charged with injustice, and God is represented as "a most "unrighteous Being; fince, according to it, he threatens a feverer damnation, "if men accept not his offer, which he knows they cannot accept; has decreed "to damn millions of men for being fallen in Adam; a decree, it is faid, "which none but a Devil could make; and a thousand times more unjust than "the decree of Pharaoh to drown all the male children, because they were born " of:

Dialogue, p. 17.

Ibid. p. 18-20.

y Ibid. p. 19.

z Ibid. p. 21.