fervant.-Befides, the glory of the Great Supreme muft be incommunicable.

Again: To be one with God; to be equal with God; to be God's own Son; and, to be God; are, in the language of infpiration, phrases of a fimilar import, and may be fafely explained one by another. So, we find, the Jews understood them. For when our Lord faid, "I and the Father are one;" they took up stones to ftone him. And when Jefus afked them the reason of their outragious conduct, they anfwered; "Because "that thou, being a man, makeft thyfelf God." From whence it is evident, that, in their opinion, to be one with the Father, and to be God, are the fame thing In the fame exalted point of light they confidered the character, SON OF GOD, as affumed by Jefus Chrift. For they looked upon him as appropriating it to himself, in a proper, not in a figurative fenfe. No, they would never have made such a stir, nor have laid fo heavy a charge against him, if the only caufe of complaint had been; That he called himself the Son of God, by a metaphor, or by adoption. For they confidered themfelves as the adopted fons of God; faying, "We have one Father, even God." They, therefore, must mean fomething very different from this, when they fay; "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, "because he made himself THE SON OF GOD." And, in another place, they explain themselves; they let us know more fully what they understood by the auguft character. For when Jefus, vindicating his conduct in healing the impotent man on the fabbath-day, faid; "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work: they "fought the more to kill him; because he not only had "broken the fabbath, but said also, that GoD WAS HIS “Father, making himself EQUAL WITH GOD."From which it is manifeft, that to be "God's own Son," and to be "equal with God," were the fame thing in their account. And, indeed, the characters, own Son, and only Son, naturally fignify an equality, a fameness of

effence. We have no reason, therefore, to be furprised that the Jews, taking his words in their proper fense, fhould think that he claimed and afferted an equality with God. Nor did our Lord give them any intimation, that they had misunderstood him; nor yet the evangelift, as he does in feveral other inftances of much lefs importance; which filence is a ftrong prefumptive proof, that they were not under a mistake about the fenfe of the words? for fuch a mistake, on the principles of our oppofers, might have been an occafion of idolatry in them; and a mistake of that kind, not remarked by the hiftorian, would be calculated to anfwer the fame pernicious purpofe in fucceeding generations.

Nothing car be more oppofité than the conduct of thofe Jews, who accufed Chrift of blafphemy; and that of others, who faid of Herod, "It is the voice of a god, "and not of a man." When, therefore, we justify the one, we must condemn the other. The former will not allow Jefus to speak of himself as God, because he is a man: the latter will not have Herod to exprefs himself as a man, but afcribe to him the voice of God. Now if Providence condemn the impiety of these, by punishing Herod in a fignal manner, for not rejecting their blaf-* phemous applaufe; Heaven, on the hypothefis of our oppofers, muft approve the language of those who exclaim' against Jefus Chrift, for making himself equal with God. And if their charge of blafphemy had been founded on a mistake, by taking his words in a wrong. fenfe ; he ought, one would think, to have fet them right, by explaining the terms he used. But if he refufed to correct fo dangerous a mistake on their account, yet was it not neceffary that he fhould have done it on ours? that when we read his gospel, we might not entertain the deteftable thought, that he equalled himself with the Moft High. If, however, he thought it proper not te explain himself, at that time; yet it might have been expected, that his difciples fhould have given us the

true sense of the mysterious words, when they reported them..

But, fo far from this, the evangelifts and apostles, who undoubtedly knew his meaning; and who knew also that he was condemned for a defign to abolish the law of Mofes, and for having blafphemed the fovereign majefty of God, by claiming an equality with him; clear him in the former cafe, and leave us perfectly fatisfied, by fhewing in what fenfe he abolished the law, and in what refpects he fulfilled it. But, as to the latter, they take no notice of it. Nay, they not only forbear to vindicate him from the charge of blafphemy, but feem to write as if they intended to confirm the accufation. For, knowing what had paffed, they give him fuch titles of grandeur and Divinity after his refurrection, as he never affumed while he was upon earth. What is it, then, on the hypothefis of our opponents, but to authorize the charge of blafphemy, which the Jews faftened upon him, for Paul to affert "He thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH "GOD?"

Further: After thefe invincible reafons to the contrary, for invincible they are on the principles of our adverfaries; the apoftles reprefent their Mafter as being the fame with God; by faying many fublime things of him, which never were, and which never could be faid of any but the true God, without impiety. Thy call him GOD; GoD, with the highest epithets. For example: They call him THE GREAT GOD; THE TRUE GOD; GOD OVER ALL BLESSED FOR EVER. In their infallible writings he is denominated, THE LORD; (the expreffion by which the Seventy render the most auguft names of God) THE LORD OF GLORY; MY LORD AND MY GOD; THE GOD OF ISRAEL; THE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. HE WHO IS, AND WAS, AND IS TO Such are the characters given by the apostles to Jefus Chrift, by which to juftify him against the charge of making himfelf equal with God;" and by

COME.

which to confute the formal and folemn accufation, drawn up against him in the face of the whole world, under which he died!

The genuine import of several of thofe titles which I have juft mentioned, has been already confidered: I fhall, therefore, only just touch upon a few of them. THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL, is a title given to Jesus Christ by the angel to Zacharias, when foretelling the honourable and fuccefsful work of John the Baptist. These are his words: "And many of the children of Ifrael fhall he "turn to THE LORD THEIR GOD. And he fhall go "before Him, in the spirit and power of Elias." He before whom the Baptift went, was the Lord, the God of Ifrael. But He before whom he went, was Jefus Christ. Jefus Chrift, therefore, is the God of Ifrael.

He is called THE TRUE GOD. "We know that the "Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true: and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jefus Chrifl. THIS " IS THE TRUE GOD, and eternal life.' That interpretation which refers these words, "This is the true "God," to the Father, and not to the Son, is fufficiently refuted by producing the paffage.

THE GREAT GOD, is another of his Divine titles. "Looking for that bleffed hope, and the glorious "appearing of THE GREAT GOD, and, or even, our "Saviour Jefus Chrift." The article which, in the original, is put before Great God, and belongs equally to Saviour, is a proof that both these characters are applied to the fame Person; a certain proof, that our Lord is here called THE GREAT GOD, as well as THE SAVIOUR. The adjective great, being connected with the term Saviour, as well as with the term God; which is the reason why the Greek article is put before the epithet great, and not before the noun God.

* τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ και σωτῆρος, Τit. ii. 13.

The fame divinely glorious Perfon is called, GOD OVER ALL BLESSED FOR EVER. "Of whom, as con"cerning the flesh, Chrift came, WHO IS OVER ALL, "GOD BLESSED FOR EVER." The earnest defire of our opponents, to evade the force of this paffage, is evident by their maintaining, that the words," who is "over all, God bleffed for ever," relate to God the Father; though he is not so much as mentioned in the preceding verses, and though the term Chrift is the noun, to which the relative who naturally and neceffarily belongs.

CHAPTER III.

If JESUS CHRIST be not the true God, the Chriftian Religion has not fufficient Criteria, by which to distinguish it from Idolatry and Imposture.

AND now, if the principles of our adverfaries

be true, it is no very difficult thing to make good of the Chriftian, what we have already proved of the Jewish religion: that is, horrid idea! it is not diftinguishable from idolatry and imposture.

1

Not from idolatry. For in what does idolatry confift, but in confounding the creature with the Creator? And what is confounding the creature with the Creator, but' investing the former with the peculiar honours and effential glory of the latter? Herod, as before observed, was guilty of blafphemy, and the people of idolatry, when he received their impious applaufe; "It is the voice "of a god and not of a man ;" though they confidered bim fill as a real man. They who caft a grain of incenfe before an idol, were guilty of idolatry, though they did it with reluctance. One could not fwear by the