drawn from it in favour of the deity of Jefus Christ, is evident from v. 4; where it is added by the prophet concerning the fame person, that he fhall ftand and feed in the frength of the LORD, in the majefty of the name of the LORD HIS GOD.

Haggai ii. 9. The glory of this latter houfe fhall be greater than of the former. Mr. Hawker fays, on account of the divinity of his presence who appeared in it during his incarnation. But we are to attend to the prophets reafons, who fays not a word respecting our Lord's divinity. The only reafons affigned by him are, that the defire of all nations was to make his appearance in it, that the Lord would fill the house with glory, and that in it he would give peace.

Zechariah ii. 10. 11. Sing and rejoice O daughter of Zion: for lo, I come, midst of thee faith the LORD.

and I will dwell in the And many nations fhall

be joined to the LORD in that day, and fhall be my peo

ple, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath fent me unto thee. There is no reason to suppose that this paffage has any relation to Jesus Christ. It appears from v. 3d and 4th, that it is nothing more than an angel delivering a message, and that he fometimes fpeaks in his own name, fometimes in the name of Jehovah. It is ftrange that Mr. Hawker, when he intimates that one LORD was

fent

fent by another, fhould not have perceived how very contradictory the expreffion was to his own hypothefis. For he thus makes two diftin&t LORDS, one of whom was fuperior to the other.

Zechariah xiii. 7. Awake, O fword, against my fhepherd, and against the man that is my fellow. In answer to what Mr. Hawker has advanced upon this paffage, it may be asked, Can a being whom God himself calls a man, and his fhepherd, be his fellow, his equal? The true rendering is, against the man that is near to me, that is my favourite. (k)

Malachi iii. i. Behold I will fend my messenger and he fhall prepare my way before me, (and the LORD whom ye feek fhall fuddenly come to his temple,) even the messenger of the covenant whom ye delight in: behold he fhall come faith the LORD of hosts. By the LORD who was to come to his temple, we are to underftand Jehovah himself, who came to his temple by Jefus Chrift. That this is the true meaning of the paffage is evident, because the temple is never called in the New Teftament, the temple of Chrift; but he himself calls it the house of God, the houfe of his Father. Matt. xii. 4. John ii. 16.

I have now examined all the paffages which Mr.

M

Hawker

(k) The LXX. render it worn us, my citizen, and the Sy riac version amicum meum, my friend.

Hawker has quoted from the prophecies of the Old Teftament, in proof of the fuperior nature of Jesus Christ, from which I hope it will appear, that neither Dr. Priestley, nor any other Unitarian, is guilty of prefumption in afferting, "That none of the prophets, in speaking of the Meffiah, gave the Jews any idea of any other than a man like themselves in that illuftrious character." We affert it only, because none of the paffages which Mr. Hawker has produced, nor any other which he has not produced, appear to us to point him out as any thing more.

CHAPTER VIII.

Neither the Miracles nor the Difcourfes of Jefus any Proofs that he is God.

THE

HE next fubject, which offers itself for confideration, is the evidence Mr. Hawker has brought forward to prove the divinity of our Lord, during his life time on earth,

He begins his fermon, on this fubject, with entering into the proofs of our Lord's miraculous conception.

conception. But this, I have before had occafion to obferve, is quite foreign to the doctrine of his deity, and is admitted by many Unitarians. I fhall therefore now pass it by. (1)

His next proof is taken from our faviour's mighty

(1) I cannot, however, help obferving in a note, that Mr. Hawker has used two terms as fynonymous, which are really very different, the miraculous conception, and the miraculous incarnation. By the miraculous conception we can understand nothing more, than that the human nature of Jefus Chrift, was produced by the immediate power of the Moft High, in the womb of the virgin. By the incarnation is meant, that the divine nature, God the Son, became incarnate in the human nature. The arguments he has brought forward may apply to the former, but they afford no proof of the latter. Had Mr. Hawker established the doctrine of the incarnation, it would have been an unequivocal proof, in favour of the unity of natures in the períon of Chrift, on which he infifts p. 164-167. But the miraculous conception affords not the least proof of any fuch union.

I will also here notice the text Mr. Hawker has quoted from the book of the Revelations, Chap. xxii. ver. 16. I am the root, and the offspring of David. By the word root, fometimes in the scriptures, is intended a branch or fhoot from a root. See Judges v. 14. Ifaiah xi. 1. 10, and liii. 1. And the Greek word na, and, may have in this places as it has in many others, the force of an explicative. The following then will be the the rendering of the verfe, I am the branch, even the offspring of David. Vide Grotius in loc; and also on Rev. v. 5.

mighty works, in all which," fays Mr. Hawker, "it appears that he was influenced by his own immediate will and authority."(m) I will produce a few paffages from the New Teftament, in which our Lord and his apoftles affert the contrary, and which fet all Mr. Hawker's reasoning on this fubject afide. Matt. xii. 28. But if I caft out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. See alfo Luke xi. 20; who has it, If I with the finger of God, &c. meaning his power. John v. 19. 21. The fon can do nothing of himself; but what he feeth the Father do. For the Father loveth the fon, and fheweth him all things that himself doth : and he will fhew him greater works than thefe. Ver. 22d. For the Father hath committed all judgment to the fon. Ver. 26th. For as the Father hath life in himjelf; jo hath he given to the fon to have life in himJelf. Ver. 30th. I can of mine own felf do nothing. John ix. 4. I must work the works of him that fent me. John x. 25. The works that I do in my Father's name they bear witness of me.

John xiv. 911. He that hath Jeen me, hath feen the Father; (n)

and

(m) P. 173.

(n) These words are frequently brought as a proof of the deity of Jefus Chrift. But if they be taken literally they will prove, not that Jefus Chrift is God the Son, but God the Father. The truth however seems to be, that they cannot be taken literally, because the scriptures teach us to con

fider