fo, that according to thefe, the agent which fuf fered in the Perfon of Chrift, was more than a man (if the expreffion may be allowed) viz. he was that agent by whom God made the worlds; and this opinion feems moft agreeable to the fcriptures.

Which of these various opinions is the truth is not the prefent question; but which of them fets the greatest value upon the agent, or fufferer in the Perfon of Chrift, and fo fets the greatest value upon that fuffering. And this, I think, is plainly the cafe of those who are called Arians. They confider the fufferer, or that agent who bore and fuffered in the perfon of Chrift, to be that very fame agent by whom God made the worlds. Whereas the Cerinthians, Sabellians, Socinians, and the Prefent Orthodox, confider and efteem the fuffering agent, in the Perfon of Christ, to be no more than barely a man. And if that man received affiftance from God, or was united to him, it alters not the cafe, becaufe fuch affiftance and fuch union, does not alter or change the fuffering fubject: he is ftill but a man in their eftimation, and therefore the value which arises to his fuffering from his perfon, can be no other than what arifes from him in the capacity of a man, as it was in that capacity, and that only in which he fuffered. And forafmuch as in the above propofition, the fuffering agent, in the perfon of Chrift, is not confidered, or reprefented as less valuable, than what he really is, or than any christian of any denomination reprefents him to be; therefore the charging that propofition with leffening the value of Chrift's fuffering and death, is unjust and groundless.

OBJECTION

OBJECTION II.

Secondly, It may be objected, that the forementioned ar guments fall to the ground, because the fcriptures, which are brought to prove and fupport them, are mifapplied, by applying them to the divine, as well as the human nature of Chrift: whereas, if they had been rightly applied, it would have been to the human nature alone, confidered in a separate and diftinct capacity from the divine nature in Chrift.

T

HIS being the grand refuge, which men generally fly to, under every difficulty in the prefent question, I fhall be the more particular in examining it. The plain english of which I take to be this, viz. that our Lord Jefus Chrift is conftituted of two diftinct individual moral agents, which agents are characterized by thofe terms, viz. Chrift's divine and human nature; and that what is faid of and applied to Chrift in general, in the texts above, is in ftrictnefs applicable only to that part of Chrift which is called his human nature; and therefore, tho' that part of Chrift be proved to be inferiour and fubordinate to the Father, from the texts before mentioned, yet nothing can be concluded from thence, with respect to the other part of Chrift, or Chrift at large, as including the two agents aforefaid; and that the other part of Chrift, viz. that moral agent which conftitutes his divine nature, this agent comes in equal fharer with the Father, and a certain third agent in fupremacy of existence, agency, and dominion; which three moral agents conftitute the one fupreme God, whofe complex idea is expreffed by that character. This, I think, is a fair reprefentation of what is urged in the prefent cafe, fo far as men talk or write intelligibly, or as one can judge of their meaning by their words.To which

I

I answer; the Two points advanced above, viz. that the Son of God, our Lord Jefus Chrift, is conftituted of a coalition or fociety of agents, whether two or two hundred; and that the one fupreme God is likewise conftituted of a coalition or fociety of agents, whether three, or three thousand; these are propofitions which are meerly fictitious, and are fo far from having any foundation in the Bible, that on the contrary the Bible every where fuppofes and expreffes otherwife. For when our Lord Jefus Christ is there spoken of, when he speaks or is spoken to, it is only as one agent, and not as a fociety of agents. The cafe is exactly the fame with refpect to the one fupreme God, when he is spoken of in the Bible, or when he speaks or is fpoken to, it is always in fuch a way as fuppofes and expreffes him to be but only one agent. And if after all this, men will take the freedom to aver, that the Son of God, and that God, himself, are each of them a coalition or fociety of agents, as aforefaid; and if they will likewife aver, that thofe propofitions are contained in the Bible; this is, by a juft confequence, averring, that the Bible is unqualified for being the rule of truth, in this or any other cafe. For,

If fuch a notorious perverfion and abuse of language, as aforefaid, can be justly charged upon the Bible in one inftance, and with relation to one point, then it may be fo in many others: and if God acts fo unfair a part in this particular, by delivering his mind in fuch a way, as naturally and apparently tends to mislead us, which is the prefent cafe, then we muft of course be under the greatest uncertainty, with regard to knowing what he intends, by any revelation that he makes to his creatures. By the term two, he may intend twenty; and when he faith, bear O Ifrael, the Lord thy God is one Lord; he may not intend to

dual Lord (which is the natural fenfe of the words) but on the contrary, that it is a fociety of Lords; and as the number of individuals, which conftitute that society, are not revealed in the Bible; fo it is utterly above our ability to discover their number. And when he faith, I am God, and there is none befide me, he may intend to exprefs ideas, which are contrary to what common ufage has fixed to those words. That is, he may intend to exprefs that he is not God, and that there are many others befide him. I fay, if God in the revelation he gives to his creatures, perverts the use of words, and mifapplies them in one instance, as above, he may do the fame in many others. And if this be the cafe, then nothing can be fairly concluded from the Bible; and confequently this, and every other controverfy (in which the appeal is made to the Bible) muft cease and be at an end.

Befides, If it fhould be admitted, that the term God, in the Bible, is used to exprefs a coalition or fociety of neceffarily exifting agents, which are of one fpecies or kind, then this is to admit a plurality of fupreme Deities or Gods. It is not enough for the avoiding of this charge to urge, that these are infeparably united in counjel, in acting, and the like, because fuch union does not deftrcy their individuation. It is true, this denies them to be a plurality of Gods, which are at variance and difcord among themfelves; but then it fuppofes them to be a plurality of Deities, which are in unity and concord; and furely they are not the lefs a plural in number, by their uniting in council, in acting, Sc. And,

If there are a plurality of neceffarily exifting agents, as aforefaid; yet furely there is no foundation for confining them to the number three, feeing they may be three millions, or any other

E

num

number, for any thing we know to the contrary. If it should be faid, that St. John has confined them to that number. 1 John v. 7. The Father the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. I anfwer, if the words of St. John are rightly applied in the prefent cafe, which furely they are not, then his teftimony is confronted by that of our Saviour, who by a like way of fpeaking confines them to the number two. John x. 30. I and my Father are one. And I think that the teftimony of Chrift must be allowed to be as good an authority, and as fit to be relyed on as that of St. John. But whoever reads thofe texts, and reflects with an unprejudiced mind upon the fubjects to which they relate, I am perfwaded will eafily fee, that this is not their fenfe, and that St. John, and our Saviour, are not at fuch variance as they are here reprefented to be.

If there fhould be urged, in favour of a plura lity of neceffarily exifting agents, as aforefaid, fuch texts as thefe, Gen. i, 26. And God faid let us make man, in our own image, after our likeness, &c. I answer, first, the ufual reply in this cafe is, that the terms here referred to are only a mode of speech, which was common to the monarch of the east, and that God is here reprefented as fpeaking in the language of those monarchs; now, if this be the cafe, then the urging fuch texts is trifling. But fuppofing thefe terms are to be confidered as plurals, which exprefs more than one agent; then I anfwer, fecondly, tho' here are feveral plural ex preffions made ufe of, yet they are not applied to God, nor fuppofed to be applicable to him, but the contrary. God is here reprefented and spoken of, as one individual agent, addreffing himself and speaking to another agent or agents: and he that fpeaks, and he or they that are spoken to, are expreffed by thofe plurals, us, our, &c. if it

fhould