i the face of the earth, never ventured upon what this man does, namely, to affert, or suppose, that any law, or part of a law, relating to the object of religious worship, was ever repealed or abrogated. Laftly, He adds', "that in the bonour paid to Jefus Chrift, God the Father is ultimately honoured, as this is "paid to the glory of God the Father." Now not to take notice of the blunder, the nonfenfe of this paffage, in talking of honour being paid to glory; if the Father is ultimately honoured by that fame honour which is given to the Son, as to himself, then I hope "the charge of robbing God the Father of his peerless "majefty, or of ungodding him," by afferting the Son's equality to him, is weak and groundless. 3. A third argument, proving Chrift to be the most high God, ftands thus: "If the Most High over all the earth is he whofe name alone is Jehovah, and "Chrift's name is Jehovah; if the fame things which prove the Father to be "the most high God, are faid of the Son, as they are; why may he not be "thought to be the most high God equally with the Father?" To which is replied, that when the Son perfonates Jehovah, he may be called Jehovah, as an angel that sometimes fpeaks in the perfon of God; it being ufual for fuch as deliver meffages from others, to fpeak after the fame manner those persons would have done, in whofe name they come: So that no argument can thence be drawn for his fupreme Deity; fince that name is given to an angel, when fpeaking in Jehovah's name. But it fhould be obferved, that it cannot be proved that ever any created angel, fpeaking in the name of God, ever calls himself Jehovah, or is fo called; all the places referred to by this writer, where an angel is called Jehovah, are to be understood of the uncreated angel, the Son of God, as will clearly appear at first fight, to any who will take the pains to infpect them. The paffages are Gen. xviii. 13. and xix. 24. and xxii. 15, 16. Exod. xxiii. 20, 21. Ifai. Ixiii. 9. Mal. iii. 1. All which are so many firm and standing proofs of the truth of the obfervation, that Chrift is called Jehovah; a name peculiar to the moft high God, Pfal. lxxxiii. 18. and therefore muft conclude his fupreme Deity, and the argument for it from hence, stands unshaken and unanswered. It may be ufual with meffengers to speak after the manner of the perfons in whofe name they come; but do they ever call themfelves by their names? or are they ever fo called by others? Did ever any ambaffador of the king of Great Britain, when fent to a foreign court with an ambaffy, stile himself the king of Great Britain? or call himself by the name of king George? or was he ever fo called by others? The doctrine, "that Father, Son, and Spirit, are the one most high God, "is charged with being a contradiction to reason, to the whole Bible; to be n Dialogue-writer, Part II. p. 29. * Page 43. ! Anfwer, p. 14. Remember thy creators, Revelation fpeaks of making one person, but " a self-contradiction; yea, to have many contradictions in it." To which I anfwer: Though reafon, unaffifted by revelation, tells us there is but one felfexiftent, intelligent Creator and Ruler of the univerfe, the Bible makes a clearer and further discovery of this matter, and acquaints us that more than one perfon were concerned in creation and government. Let us make man, Gen. i. 26. Let us go down and confound their language, Gen. xi. 7. Eccles. xii. 1. Thy makers are thy husbands, Ifai. liv. 5. three perfons as concerned herein; and of thefe, not as as being one God. There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one, 1 John v. 7. that is, one God. Now if it is no contradiction to the Bible, which every where speaks conformable to the voice of right reason, to say that Father, Son and Spirit, are one God; then it is no contradiction to reafon, or to the Bible, nor is it any felf-contradiction, or big with others, to fay, that Father, Son and Spirit, are the one moft high God. But, in confutation of this, we are recommended, 4. To an argument which this writer has borrowed from another perfon, drawn up in the following form: « He who is alone the fupreme governor of "the universe, is alone the fupreme God; but the Father is alone the supreme "governor of the universe." This latter propofition proved. "He who never “acts in subjection to the will of any other perfon, and every other person "whatsoever always acts in fubjection to his will, is alone the fupreme governor "of the universe: But the Father never acts in fubjection to the will of another “person, and every other perfon whatsoever always acts in fubjection to his "will; therefore the Father alone is the fupreme governor of the universe." To which I answer, by denying the minor propofition, that the Father is alone the fupreme governor of the univerfe; for the Son is with the Father the fupreme governor of the world: the kingdom is the Lord's, that is, the Lord Christ's, for he is spoken of throughout that whole pfalm ; and he is the governor among the nations. My Father, fays Chrift, worketh hitherto ; that is, in the government of the universe, in the administration of providence: and I work; I am jointly concerned with him in these things: which made the Jews rightly conclude that he made himself equal with God, an equal governor of the universe with him. Hence it is clear, that the Father is not alone the fupreme governor of the universe. Moreover, the minor propofition of the argument brought in proof of this, that the Father is alone the governor of the universe, must also be denied ; I mean that part of it on which the proof depends, that "every other perfon "whatsoever always acts in fubjection to his, the Father's will:" For though the Son of God always acts in agreement, yet not always in fubjection to his Father's will; • John v. 17. T 2 • Dialogue, Part II. p. 30, 31. P Pfalm xxii. 28. will; though he always acted in fubjection to his Father's will in the human nature, yet not in the divine nature; particularly in the works of creation and providence; in these there is an agreement with, but not a subjection to his Father's will; all things were made by him in agreement, but not in fubjection to the will of the Father; by bim all things confift, and he upholds all things by the word of bis power'; agreeable to his Father's will, but not obliged as by any power or authority fuperior to him. 5. This writer, in his first part, argues against the fupreme deity of Chrift, in this manner: "Before the Lord Jefus Chrift became man, he came from the "Father, was fent and employed by him; therefore it is impoffible he should "be the fupreme God." It is readily granted, that Chrift before his incarnation came, though he is not exprefsly faid to be fent, to redeem Ifrael, lead them through the Red fea and wilderness, and bring them to Canaan. And it has been observed, that he appeared with full proof of his equality with the Father, fince he calls himfelf the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and, I am that I am, Exod. iii. 6, 14. And Jehovah says of him, My name is in him; and that he could, though he would not, pardon iniquity; all which this author takes no notice of, but catches at the phrafes of fending, and being fent, which he thinks fuppofe fuperiority and inferiority; though it has been obferved to him, that of two equals, by agreement one may be fent by the other: But this he thinks, as applied to two perfons, who are the one moft high God, is chargeable with abfurdity and blafphemy. Not with abfurdity; for though be that is fent is not greater than be that sent him ", he may be equally as great. Nor did he appear at all inferior to the moft high God when he came to redeem Ifrael; and even when he was fent to redeem mankind, though the glory of his Deity was greatly vailed and hid from the eyes of men in his ftate of humiliation, yet he did not lay afide his authority, or give up his fupremacy and government; he was then in heaven, and as much one with the Father, and as greatly concerned with him in the government of the world, as before; fee John i. 18. and iii. 13. and v. 17. Nor is it chargeable with blafphemy; it is indeed great condefcenfion, a wonderful ftoop of Deity; and the higher the Deity of Chrift is carried, the more wonderful his condefcenfion appears whether in coming to redeem Ifrael before his incarnation, or for the falvation of his people at it. And here give me leave to correct a mistake of this author's in another place", in which he represents us as fuppofing that Chrift was begotten, fent, came forth from the Father as man, before he was man: Whereas, as man, he never was begotten at all; and might be faid to be fent, and come before he was man, in order to be fo, • Anfwer, p. 15, 16. John i. 3. Colofs. i. 16, 17. Heb. i. 3. • Page 11. " John xiii. 16. w Dialogue, Part II. p. 39. fo, with refpect to his office-capacity, which he voluntarily, and in the most condefcending manner, took upon him for the good of men. 6. Whereas the equality of Chrift with the Father is pleaded for, as being ftrongly afferted in Phil. ii. 6. John x. 30. these paffages are objected to. The first of thefe, at it ftands in our Bibles, is fo glaring a proof of the Son's equality with the Father, that the adverfaries of it are not able to withstand it; wherefore they employ all their wit and learning to deftroy the commonly received translation, and to establish another; and instead of thought it not robbery to be equal with God, render it, did not affect, greedily catch at, or affume divinity, or to appear like a God. The first after Arius, who embraced and contended for this verfion, was Enjedinus the Socinian; and most of thofe this author mentions as giving up our tranflation, are fuch who gave into the Arian or Socinian schemes, or were inclinable thereunto, contrary to the fenfe of the far greater number of learned writers, ancient and modern. I perceive this Dialogue-writer is acquainted with a book intitled Fortuita Sacra, written by a perfon of worth and learning; he would do well to confult that learned writer upon this paffage, who has refuted the tranflation and fenfe this author feems fond of, and has established the commonly received one, in agreement with the context, where Chrift is faid to be in the form of God; which he fhews to be the effential form of God, all that is great and glorious in him, his very nature and Deity, in which Chrift exifted, and therefore must be equal to him. This use of the word μορφή, he proves from ancient writers. Nor is this sense of it contradictory to right reason; for fince in nature a fon may be equal to a father, why not in the divine effence, for any thing this author has faid to the contrary? Begotten, and not derived, is no contradiction, confidered in different respects. Christ is begotten, as a Son, but underived, as God over all: He is not alous, Son of himself, though a, God of himself: He is Son of the Father, but God of himself; his personality and sonship he has of the Father, his being and perfections of himself: there is no foundation for a diftinction between a begotten and unbegotten effence; not effence, but perfon is begotten: And false it is, to say that this is not taken notice of in the Answer to the Dialogue. Moreover, the sense of the paffage before us we contend for, is no ways contrary to those scriptures which speak of Christ as commiffioned by the Father, doing his will, and nothing of himself; as not knowing the day of judgment; and that the Father is greater than he, and he is glorified by him; fince these are spoken of him in his office-capacity, and as man and mediator. This phrafe, as man and mediator, is greatly found fault with by this writer, as having, by joining thefe * Explicat. Loc. Vet. & Nov. Teft. p. 323, 324. Fortuita Sacra, p. 178, &c. these words together, a mean fallacy in it, whereas the idea of a mediator comprehends the whole person of Chrift as God-man, together with his office. But why may not these two be joined together without a fallacy, when the fcripture says, that there is one mediator between God and men, the man Chrift Jefus? True indeed, Chrift is mediator in both natures, human and divine, he having these united in one person as God-man; so that what is done in, or belongs to any of these natures, may, by virtue of this union, be predicated of his person; and yet these things must be attributed to the diftinct natures to which they belong; as for inftance, omnipotence and omniscience may be predicated of the person of Chrift, and yet these belong only to him as confidered in his divine nature: So doing nothing of himself, and not knowing the day of judgment, may be predicated of the Son, when these manifeftly belong to him as confidered in the human nature. This obfervation attended to, will unravel and destroy all that this author has wrote upon this head. The paffage in John x. 30. is a clear proof of the Son's equality with the Father; where Chrift fays, I and my Father are one; not one perfon, but one God, of one and the fame nature: By which we mean the fame divine effence and perfections; for the Son partakes of the fame divine nature, and poffeffes the fame divine perfections the Father does; he has all the fulness of the Godhead in him, and fo is equal to him. In this fenfe the Jews understood him; upon which they charge him with blafphemy, because he made himself God; and to vindicate himself, he firft argues from his inferior character, as being in office; that if magiftrates without blafphemy might be called gods, much more might he, who was fanctified and fent into the world by the Father: But he does not let the ftrefs of the proof of his deity reft here, but proceeds to prove that he was truly and properly God, by doing the fame works his Father did. So that the Jews were not mistaken in his fenfe, nor did they belie him; though they wronged him, in charging him with blafphemy on this account. As for John xvii. 21. where Chrift prays that believers may be one, as he and his Father are one, it is impertinently alledged, fince the as there does not exprefs equality, but likeness; for none will venture to say, not even this author himself, that believers are, or will be one with the Father and Son, in that self-same sense, as they are one with another; there is not the fameness of power, action or operation, which is acknowledged in the Father and the Son. Upon the whole, the text in John x. 3. ftands fully against the subordination of the Son to the Father, and is a firm proof of his equality with him in nature and perfections; by which doctrine no dishonour is done to the Father, or affront given him; fince no perfection of deity, or any branch of honour and worship, are denied him, or b1 Tim. ii. 5. given |