divine nature, Mr. Hawker produces the inftance of the blind man who acknowledged Jefus to be the Son of God, and worshipped him accordingly. See John ix. 35-38. By confeffing him, however, to be the fon of God, the blind man meant nothing more than an acknowledgement that Jefus was the Meffiah, to which it has already been proved, the phrafe, Son of God, is fynonomous. With respect to the term worship, had not Mr. Hawker laid fo much ftrefs on it, I fhould not have thought there would have been any neceffity to have informed my reader, that it does not always imply religious wor fhip. It is faid, I Chron. xxix. 20, that all the congregation bowed down their heads, and worshipped the Lora and the king (David) And Matt. xviii. 26, Our faviour fays, The fervant fell down and worshipped his Lord. By the word worship, therefore, when applied to inferior beings, we are to understand nothing more than an extraordinary degree of refpect. It is to be underftood in the highest fenfe, only when applied to that great Being whom our Lord himfelf declares to be the fole object of religious adoration. Matt. iv. 10. Thou shalt worship the LORD thy GOD, and HIM only fhalt thou ferve.

The declaration of Peter, of the Eunuch, of Nathaniel, of Martha, of John, and of the Spirits of darkness, as Mr. Hawker ftiles the demoniacs,

that

that Jefus was the Son of God, is to be confidered in no other light than their teftimony that he was the Meffiah or the Chrift.

The charge of blafphemy brought by the high priest against our faviour for declaring himself to be the Son of God, feems to have been founded on a law exifting among the Jews, by which it was made blafphemy for any one falfly to affume that title, or in other words, to declare himself to be the Meffiah. John xix. 7. We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. Dr. Lardner fupposes that the Jews had learned this title and character of the Meffiah from Pf. ii. 7-12. (0)

The laft paffage to which Mr. Hawker refers, which has any relation to this part of the fubject, is Rom. i. 4; where the apostle Paul fays, he was declared to the Son of God with power; "plainly teftifying," fays Mr. Hawker, by this expreffion, what the apostles fentiments were, that this appellation was not with Chrift a barren title, but accompanied with that plenitude of authority which the relationship might be fuppofed to include, differing most effentially in every point, when applied to any mere human character, and when

fpoken

(0) Dr. Lardner's letter on the Logos, p. 24. laft edition.

fpoken of him who came in all the power of the Higheft." (p)

In answer to thefe obfervations, I will prefent my reader with a paraphrase of the words by Mr. Locke, who, as an impartial commentator, ftands high in the opinion of all. "With moft mighty power," fays he, "declared to be the Son of God, by his refurrection from the dead." He adds in a note, "he that will read in the original what St. Paul fays, Eph. i. 19. 20, of the power which God exerted in raifing up Chrift from the dead, will hardly avoid thinking, that he fees St. Paul labouring for words to express the greatness of it."(q)

I have now, I believe, examined all the paffages Mr. Hawker has produced which relate to this part of the controverfy, not one of which feems to prove, that because Jefus is called the Son of God, he poffeffes a divine nature. The natural conclufion is, that he is fo ftiled, merely on account of his character and office.

Before I difmifs this part of the fubject, I may afk, how it is, if Jefus Chrift, as the Son of God, be really poffeffed of a divine nature, that no paffage is to be found in the New Testament, which

D

(p) P. 37. Note. (9) Locke in loc.

in

in direct terms afferts it? This would have put the matter out of dispute. But it cannot, I think, be pretended to be the cafe,

It may alfo farther be asked, how it is, that Mr. Hawker and other Trinitarians, who with him affert that Jefus Chrift is the eternal Son of the eternal Father, preferve the doctrine of the divine unity? The very terms, Father and Son, neceffarily imply, that one preceded the other. This being the cafe, if the word, eternal, be used in the fame fense when applied to each, the affertion contains as grofs a contradiction as can poffibly be uttered. But whether the word be used in the fame fense or not, it is a felf evident truth, that a being, who is begotten, muft neceffarily be distinct from the being who begets him. If, therefore, the Son were begotten of the Father, he muft neceffarily be a being diftin&t from the Father. But if the Father and the Son be diftin&t beings, and each of them at the fame time God, it neceffarily follows that there must be two Gods; a doctrine which is contradicted in almost every page of the fcriptures.

By the fame mode of reasoning it may be proved, that the Holy Ghoft, on the fuppofition he proceeded from the Father and Son, is a third God.

Indeed,

Indeed, allowing the principles of the athanafians to be true, for any thing we know to the contrary, there may be many more. If a reafon ever exifted for the Father to beget one Son of the fame nature with himself, a reason might also exift for him afterwards to beget another; and there may have been generations and proceffions of this kind innumerable. Thus it is, that those, who have introduced into our holy religion what are called thefe awful myfteries, have degraded the divine nature.

CHAPTER IV.

Of the Paffages in the New Teftament which are fuppofed to prove our Lord's Pre-existence.

R. Hawker afferts, that the evidences we

MR.

have of our Lord's pre-exiftent ftate and dignity, are the great criteria of his divinity. (r) He then produces a number of paffages to prove this pre-existent state. But even allowing his own interpretation of them to be true, it would not follow, that Christ was poffeffed of a divine nature; fince

(r) P. 41.