emperor's head, without being guilty of the fame crime; though nobody, on that account, could imagine the emperor to be God. But it would be the height of idolatry to call him GoD, and to pay him Divine honours, as the Romans did, on fome occafions. Because idolatry does not only confift in giving to a creature all that is due to the Creator; but in giving any thing to the former, which belongs to none but the latter. The facred writers, however, not only afcribe to Jefus Chrift a part of what is peculiar to God; but they agree in-attributing to him all the moft peculiar and effential characteristics of his glory. They afcribe to Jefus the moft magnificent of all Divine works. To him they attribute the power and wisdom, the immenfity and eternity of God, with other perfections of the Divine nature. They also give him God's titles, names, and glory. How, then, would it be poffible to confound the creature with the Creator to a greater degree?

It may, perhaps, be faid; Though the writers of the New Teftament fpeak of Chrift as one of that partakes, in fome measure, of the glory of the Deity'; yet, that he might not be accufed of a defign to confound himself with God, he exprefsly declared, "The Father is greater than I."-But this is far from invalidating our argument. A perfon, for inftance, who loves money, who is really a covetous man, and who has bowed all his life at the fhrine of Mammon, will readily allow, That God is the chief good, and to be loved above all riches. Yet fuch an acknowledgment will neither acquit him from the charge of covetoufnefs, nor from the guilt of idolatry.-A man who fhould affume the titles and names of God, with a view to be worshipped, would fet himself up for an idol, though he were once and again to confefs, That God is greater than he. Or, to vary the comparison, a subject who should afcribe to himself all the works of his fovereign; affume his titles; and call himself, the true king, the great king, and the lord of the flate, whom all around

are bound to obey ;-who fhould cause himfelf to be addreffed as king, and exact fuch honours as were never given to any but the real monarch; would certainly be guilty of high-treafon, though he might have said, once at least, The king is greater than I.

Again: The Chriftian religion, according to the Socinian hypothefis, is not diftinguifhable from impofture; is little better than an impious comedy, which is calculated to dishonour God and deceive mankind. For, fhocking to imagine! Jefus Chrift appears in the church much like an actor on the stage; who takes the names and titles of a king; who attributes to himself his works, and requires his honours, without being really what he pretends to be. Yet with this difference, a player on the stage, when acting the part of a fovereign, does not pretend that the play is an important reality; nor that the fpectators fhould pay him the honours of royalty, after the representation; nor yet that they should be fincerely perfuaded he is a king, while the play continues. But here, according to the impious genius of the Socinian fyftem, we have a kind of comedy, in which a mere man calls himself God; the GREAT GOD; the MIGHTY GOD; and the TRUE GOD;—who requires Divine honours, and, as God, has received them from his moft eminent difciples, though he depend on God for his very existence.

That the Christian religion is turned, by the Socinian fyftem, into an empty appearance and mere fhew, is evident. For you find in it, a representative God and a metaphorical facrifice; an atonement, that is only fo in appearance, and an imaginary hell: for the wicked, according to the Socinians, fhall be annihilated.

But the miracles which Jefus wrought were true and 'real; nor ought they to be compared with the reprefentations of the ftage.' This confideration, detached from other things, is of little weight. For of what worth are miracles performed by one, who attempted to feat himself on the throne of the Deity? If Jefus

ufurp the glory of God, neither humility, nor juftice, nor zeal for God, nor love to men, can be found in him. On this fuppofition, all his virtues and all his piety are obfcured and loft: and in their ftead we behold, pride and ambition, injuftice and facrilege, blafphemy and feduction. For as miracles, accompanied with holiness, are evidently wrought by the Spirit of God; fo thofe works, however amazing, which patronize blafphemy and idolatry, ought ever to be confidered as proceeding from the fpirit of darkness.

But I fhall not further enlarge on this argument, nor any longer defile my paper with fuch horrid fuppofitions. Enough, I perfuade myself, has been faid to prove, into what a dreadful abyfs the principles of our adverfaries lead. Enough alfo has been faid to evince, that the DEITY of Jefus Chrift is ESSENTIAL to the Christian religion; which is the grand principle I propofed to demonftrate.

239

SECTION VI.

The principal objections answered; and fome Confiderations, adapted to relieve the mind refpecting the Difficulties which attend this Great Mystery.

CHAPTER I.

Divine Revelation, not depraved Reason, to be our Guide in all inquiries of this nature.

HAVING eftablished the truth, by arguments

drawn from the Records of Infpiration; our next business is, to answer the principal objections, which are made by our opponents. They argue against us both from reafon and Scripture; but while we are firmly perfuaded that neither found reafon, nor the Holy Scriptures, rightly underflood, will afford any real objection against us; we cannot forbear obferving, that our oppofers lay more ftrefs on arguments drawn from reafon, than on thofe derived from Divine Revelation. Strange as this conduct may appear to fome, who are not verfed in these controverfies, we cannot eafily question the fact, if we confider the language of their most celebrated writers.-Smalcius, for inftance, is not afhamed thus to exprefs himself; We believe, that though we should find it, not ONCE, nor TWICE, but VERY FREQUENTLY AND MOST EXPRESSLY written in the Scripture, That God was made man; it would

⚫be much better, as it is an abfurd propofition, ENTIRELY • CONTRARY TO SOUND REASON, and full of blafphemy, to invent fome way of fpeaking, which might render it fafe to be affirmed of God, rather than to understand it in the literal fenfe*. As if he had faid, We are

Thefe are his words: Credimus, etiamfi non femel atque iterum, fed SATIS CREBRO ET DISERTISSIME SCRIPTUM extaret, Deum effe bominem factum, multo fatius effe, quia hæc res fit abfurda, ET SANAE RATIONI PLANE CONTRARIA, et in Deum blafphema, MODUM ALIQUEM DICENDI COMMINISCI, quo ifta de Deo dici poffint, quam ifta fimpliciter ita ut verba 'fonant intelligere.' SMAL. Homil. VIII. ad Cap. I Job.

To thefe bold affertions of SMALCIUS, in oppofition to the doctrine of the incarnation, may be added the no lefs unwarrantable declarations of SOCINUS and SCHLICHTINGIUS: the former, in reference to the fubftitution and atonement of Chrift; the latter, relating to the efficacy of Divine grace and the freedom of the human will. Ego quidem, faith SOCINUS, * etiamfi non femel fed SAEPE id in Sacris Monumentis fcriptum extaret, non idcirco tamen rem ita prorfus fe habere crederem, ut vos opinamini. Quum ea quæ fieri non poffe aperte conftat, Divinis etiam Oraculis ea fuiffe in fpeciem atteftantibus, nequaquam admittantur; et idcirco facra verba in ALIUM SENSUM quam ipfa fonant per INUSITATOS ETIAM TROPOS quandoque explicantur.' De Serwat. Part. III. Cap. VI. That is, Though it [the doctrine of the atonement and fatisfaction of Chrift] were found, not only once, but FREQUENTLY WRITTEN in the Holy Scriptures; I, indeed, would not therefore believe it to be entirely as you fuppofe. Though the Divine Oracles may atteft things to be fo, in appearance; yet they cannot,, by any means, be admitted, because they are very evidently impoffible and, therefore, the facred words are fometimes explained, EVEN BY UNUSUAL TROPES, to a SENSE DIFFERENT from their literal fignification.

The following are the words of SCHLICHTINGIUS: 'Itaque non quia utrumque Scriptura dicat propterea hæc inter fe non pugnare concludendum eft; fed potius quia hæc inter fe pugnant ideo alterutrum a Scriptura non dici ftatuendum eft.' Ad Meifn. Def. Socin. p. 20.-That is, We cannot conclude, because the Scripture affirms them both, [i. e. the energy of Divine grace, and the freedom of the human will] that therefore they are not repugnant the one to the other; but, as these two,