For if fo, of all the Heathen deities, the worship of none but their Jupiter would be condemned, by this command. Befides, why should it condemn a crime that never did, and, according to all probability, never will exift? for none ever yet worshipped two fupreme gods.

Were not the Jews in the right, then, when they complained that Jefus, being a mere man, made himself God? Or, can we blame their conduct, unless we confider Chrift as of the fame effence with Him who created the universe? They affixed the idea of the Supreme Being to the name Gon; having been taught, by the prophets, that there is but one God, and that all other deities fhall perish from the earth. So that if they were under a mistake, in this respect, they were led into it by their prophets; but if not, they were obliged, on the principles of our opponents, to condemn Jefus for ufurping the names and honours of God.-For it fhould be obferved, that names do not naturally exprefs thefe ideas rather than thofe; their fignification being fixed, either by God himself, fpeaking in the Scriptures; or by general confent and cuftom. We are not, therefore, to confider the letters which compofe the name GOD, in English; Osos, in Greek; JEHOVAH, in Hebrew; as having any thing facred, or peculiarly fignificant, in them; but we must examine what ideas are affixed to thefe names. Now these ideas are not fuch as any particular perfon may please to fix upon them; but thofe which have been, and are annexed to them, by the unerring Spirit, in the Bible; and by the common confent of mankind.--Were a Count of an empire, for inftance, to affume the title of Emperor; he would, no doubt, difplease the princes; and it would be but a pocr apology to fay, That by the exalted title, he meant no more than a fovereign prince in his own country.' He would foon be informed, that the common confent of men, not his particular fancy, fettles the fignification of the term. In like manner, it would be to no purpose

for Chriftians to fay; Though Jefus affumed the name GOD; yet he did not apply it to himself in that sense in which it is commonly ufed: for the question is not, What he understood by it; but, What men ought to understand by it, when it is given to him.

If, therefore, we would know what Jefus meant, by calling himself GOD; or what his difciples intended, by giving him that name; we must inquire what was the common acceptation of the term, in the language of men in general, or in that of the Jews, or of the prophets, or of God himself. If the name agree to Christ, as a mere man, let our adverfaries inform us which of thefe they follow. It is not agreeable to the manner of fpeaking among men in general; for it never was their custom to call a mere man by the name GoD. Much less is it conformable to the current language of the Jews; ncr to that of the prophets; nor to that of God. The Jews used to affix, to that facred name, the idea of the Great Supreme; the idea of him who formed the univerfe for they knew of no other God. The fame is evident concerning the prophets who had taught them fo to believe and fo to fpeak; and of the Holy Spirit, who had fo taught the prophets.

CHAPTER II.

The argument continued.

THE Jews, who lived in the apoftolic times, ought not to be blamed for speaking as God and the prophets had taught them. They cannot be juftly blamed for not being able to guess, that the name GoD had a fignification which had not been heard of till that time; a fignification which fully acquitted a man who, without it, would have been convicted of blafphemy. Much lefs are the modern Jews to be cenfured for fpeaking, as their forefathers taught them. But let us confider the various ways, in which the members of the ancient fynagogue were inftructed by their prophets, in this refpect.

The prophets frequently reminded them of this precept; "Thou fhalt have no other gods before me;" without ever fubjoining the leaft qualification, or restriction, by which they might learn, that this command was not general and obligatory in all ages and places. Were the Jews, then, obliged to believe, without any manner of notice, that a command fo inviolable till then, had loft its force in the time of Jefus Christ?

They conftantly oppofe that God who made all things, to every created god. As they affert the unity of God, with great frequency and great folemnity; fo they diftinguish him by his character, "He made the

heavens and the earth." Nay, they declare that "the gods who made not the heavens and the earth, "fhall perish from under the heavens." The Jews could not but confider this affertion, as general; and as teaching them, that no one ought to be acknowledged as God, but him that created the world and is unchangeable.

The prophets taught, that God cannot be represented by any picture, or image; because there is nothing in the world fit to reprefent him. "To whom," or to

what, fays God, "will ye liken me?" By which the Jews were informed, that nothing which might be reprefented on canvafs, or in ftatuary, ought to be acknowledged as God. Confequently, they muft conclude, that a mere man was very far from deferving to be called GOD.

The name JEHOVAH, with all other Divine titles and characters which our Maker affumes in the Scripture, are names of diftin&tion; and were defigned to exalt him far above all creatures. "I am JEHOVAH, that is my name. There is no GoD befides me. Ye fhall

"fwear by my name. Whofoever fweareth upon the "earth, fhall fwear by the GoD of truth." Now these characters and claims were defigned to diftinguish God, either from all his creatures, or only from fome of them. If the latter, in vain does He say; "There is no "GOD befides me." Because it might be answered, Though that be thy name, it does not diftinguish thee from every creature for there is, or there will be one, that shall bear it with thee. If the former, then whoever calls himself GOD, difowns the condition of a creature ; and, confequently, if Jefus Chrift affumed that name, or any other expreffive of the fame glory, the Jews could not but accufe him of blafphemy.

The prophets abundantly affert the unity of God. Nor can we confider their extraordinary care, in this refpect, as owing to any thing, but the danger there was of men falling into idolatry; by acknowledging, as God, one that was not JEHOVAH. But were the days of the prophets the only time in which men were in any fuch danger? Were they not exposed to the fame evil, when the Sanhedrim judged Jefus Chrift? But why do I ask fuch questions? for, if we believe our adverfaries, the event has proved, that it was poffible for men, with the writings of the prophets in their hands, to become

idolaters; by placing a creature, honoured with the name of God, on the throne of the Deity.-The Jews, then, were obliged to be jealous for the glory of God, as the prophets had been in the times of their fathers. For they might eafily foresee, that if a mere man were fuffered to call himself God, he would foon be put in the place of God; and the event has verified fuch an apprehenfion. As the prophets, therefore, had for fo many ages conftantly declared, that there is but one object, to whom the name GoD belongs, in order to guard the people against idolatry; the fame reason required the Jews to withstand a man, who dared to affume the names and titles of God.

Jehovah, by the prophets, declares, "I will not give my glory to another, nor my praise to graven images." The Jews, therefore, had reafon to conclude, that He had not given his glory to Jefus Chrift. For either this propofition is general; and fo fignifies, that God never gives his glory to any one: or it is particular, and imports, that at fome times, and on certain occafions, he does give his glory to another. If the latter, the afsertion is trifling and the reasoning vain. For the meaning mult be, God gives not his glory to another, on fome occafions, though he does it on others. Therefore, he will not give his praife to graven images. If the former, as it muft undoubtedly be, the Jews were obliged to conclude, that God had not given his glory to Jefus Chrift; and confequently, he could not, without manifeft impiety, either invest himself with the titles of God, or pretend to Divine honours.

The prophets have fo great a refpect for the names of God, that they carefully avoid taking any metaphors from them; which is a very remarkable difference between human and Divine language. The former, being that of men who do not fufficiently reverence the Deity, abounds with metaphors taken from God. Almost every thing is reprefented, by one or another, as divine, adorable, infinite. Incenfe and facrifice,