a vine, a way, and the like; or when God is said to have eyes, hands, mouth, heart, &c. And, in such cases, every sensible man knows that a literal construction would be absurd: but in the instance now before us, here is no mark at all of any trope, figure, or metaphor, nor any reasonable objection against interpreting up to the letter. So far from it, that the whole tenour of Scripture confirms us in it, that Christ is Jehovah, and properly Creator: and the worship ascribed to him is another concurring circumstance to complete the demonstration. In short then, those Arian salvos come too late: the text itself has, in express words, precluded them.

The author goes on to object: "Upholding all things, but by "the word of God's power." Dr. Clarke interprets it Father's power: which is a possible, not a certain construction. The text may as probably, or more probably, be understood of the Son's own power. However, be it Father's or Son's, it is all one power, and he and his Father are one. The authorm adds, "Seating "himself not in God's throne, but at his right hand"." And what then? Is he not a second Person? But, it seems, that if he had been seated in the same throne, the author would then allow the equality. Turn we therefore to the book of Revelations, and there we find them both in one throne. It is THE THRONE (not thrones) oF GOD AND OF THE LAMBO: and Christ himself declares that he was in his Father's throneP.

It is asked, why should angels be called upon to worship him, if he were God equal to the Father? "Can they be supposed ig"norant, if that were the caseq?" To which I reply, that though angels were fully apprised of his high perfection and dignity, yet as to the particular times, places, and circumstances, when, and where, and in what manner, they should pay their homage or devotions, they might wait for special orders. The Father's manifesting his Son to the world was a new and extraordinary occasion and how should the angels know in what manner they were to behave upon it, without particular direction? They were ordered thereupon to repeat or renew their solemn exercises of devotion towards the Son, now become man, and clothed in flesh:

m Sober and Charitable &c. p. 69. n What the phrase of sitting at God's right hand imports, is very judiciously and carefully discussed by Vitringa, Observ. Sacr. lib. ii. c. 4, 5.

• Revel. xxii. 1.

P Revel. iii. 21. Compare Zechar. vi. 12, 13. and Vitringa, ibid. c. 5. p. 310.

4 Sober and Charitable &c. p. 70, 71.

as they had also special directions for celebrating his nativity or incarnation in devout doxologies".

It is further pleaded, that the words, GoD, EVEN THY GOD, argue some inferiority of God the Son. Yes, of the Son considered as mans and in his state of humiliation, in which God the Father anointed him with the oil of gladness, with the unction of the Spirit, above his fellows; his partners in the same naturet, partakers of the same flesh and blood; on which account "he is "not ashamed to call them brethren "."

The author asks, why should not the Apostle roundly assert that Christ was Jehovah, if it were his purpose to set him forth as such? Had he done it ever so roundly, a contentious adversary might still have found fault, and might have required somewhat further. The Apostle has said what is sufficient for the conviction of any reasonable man, by applying what is directed to Jehovah in the Psalm, to God the Son in this chapter. This is saying the thing roundly enough: and we are not obliged to give reasons why he has said no more, if he has said what may suffice with men of ordinary discernment. But I may hint further, that a very probable reason may be assigned why he did not take that precise method which the objector fancies he should have done. It was the Apostle's direct design, as it seems, to prove that the Son was above the angels, in opposition, very probably, to the Simonians or Cerinthians of that time, who attributed the creation of the world to angels, and who looked upon Jesus as a mere man, and as such inferior to angels. Therefore the Apostle chiefly labours these two points, namely, to prove that Christ was really Creator2, and that he is vastly superior to angels. What he further insinuates of his being Jehovah comes in by the bye: and it would not have been directly to his purpose to have insisted more particularly upon it: because even that would not have proved him (in the opinion of

the heretics then prevailing) superior to angels, since they looked upon Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, as no more than angela. However, though I assign a reason which appears not improbable for the Apostle's saying no more, yet we have a right to insist upon it, that there is no need of assigning any reason at all for his not saying more than was sufficient for every purpose. There is no end of cavils when men are disposed to indulge them. The Jews sought after a sign, but had none more given them, after they had had enough. They demanded that Christ should come down from the cross for their satisfaction: but infinite wisdom would not condescend to satisfy them in their way, when they would not submit to other very sufficient and better evidences. The question therefore is not, whether the Apostle in this place has said all that could have been said, but whether he has said as much as was needful. We conceive that he has; and let those who think otherwise consider how they can fairly evade the force of what they here find, before they require more. Let them think how it is possible to elude what St. Paul has here said to prove that Christ is Jehovah, though he has proved it only by the bye, and has not largely or directly insisted upon it.

I shall only add, that if the point is to be decided by the asking of questions in this way, let leave be given to the orthodox also to ask a few questions in their turn. If Christ be a creature, why is it not roundly asserted either in Old or New Testament? And if he and the Father be two Gods, supreme and inferior, why is not that also roundly asserted, in some part of Scripture at least? We have the more reason to expect it should, because otherwise the contrary doctrine hath so many and so plausible appearances of truth, that the most serious and conscientious persons are under inevitable danger of deception by them. And therefore, if we may be allowed to reason and argue with the tremendous Deity upon the subject of his revelations, or dispensations towards mankind, none, we imagine, can with more justice, or with better grace, ask, why has not Scripture some

a Post hunc Cerinthus hæreticus erupit, similia docens: nam et ipse mundum institutum esse ab illis [angelis] dicit: Christum ex semine Joseph natum proponit, hominem illum tantummodo sine divinitate con

tendens; ipsam quoque legem ab angelis datam perhibens; Judæorum Deum, non Dominum, sed angelum promens. Pseudo-Tertull. Præscript. xlviii. Conf. Epiphan. Hær. xxviii. I.

C.

where or other dropped a hint or two about Christ's being a creature, or about his being an inferior God, admitting foro Gods, two adorable Deities, to prevent our falling into an otherwise unavoidable delusion? I doubt not. if that were the truth, but that our Lord himself, (whose humility is so justly celebrated,) and his Disciples after him, would have openly proclaimed it; and that we should have as plainly found it in the New Testament throughout, as now we find the reverse. Can we imagine that a truth of that moment (if it were a truth) should be left in obscurity, to be drawn out, at length, after more than 300 years, by Arius, Actius, and Eunomius; and that by the help chiefly of logical conceits and metaphysical speculations, far above the reach of common capacities? Certainly, Divine Wisdom could not be so much wanting to the bulk of mankind, but would have provided better for them in a scriptural way, and by plain words, that so they might be more beholden to Christ and his Apostles for their faith, than to the Dialectics of Aristotle, or Chrysippus's subtleties. But I forbear to press this further: and having briefly run through all that the author of Sober and Charitable Disquisition had to urge in favour of the Arian interpretation, both of John i. and Hebr. i., I must now leave it to the impartial readers to judge, whether any thing has been offered on that side, which can be thought sufficient to counterbalance our plain and direct evidences brought from express words, fixed to a certain meaning by all the approved rules of grammar and criticism, and confirmed by the universal suffrage of the first and purest ages. Thus far I was obliged to enter into a small part of the other controversy, which affects the truth of the doctrine, rather than the importance; because, as I hinted in the entrance, the author I am concerned with had

b Clarissimis Scripturæ testimoniis argumentationes metaphysicæ arguthe opponere, Eunomii est, qui ab Actio magistro edoctus, essentiam divinam penitus ac perfecte scilicet cognitam sibi habere persuadebat. Tam perspicue Deum qualis sit nori, ac tantam illius notitiam sum consecutus, ut ne me ipsum quidam melius quam illum noverim. Actius apud Epiphanium Ixxvi. p. 916, 989. Eunomius ipse, majore etiam insolentia apud Socratem, iv. 7. De sui ipsius essentia, Deus

nihil amplius scit quam nos: nec illa ipsi quidem notior, nobis autem obscurior. Fabric. Bibl. Græc. lib. v. c. 23. p. 272. Conf. Basil. contr. Eunom. lib. i. p. 224. Theodorit. Hæret. Fab. lib. iv. c. 3. Cyrill. Alex. Thesaur. p. 260. Chrysost. Hom. xxvii. tom. i. P. 307. Philostorg. lib. i. p. 468, 470. ed. Vales. Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xxxiv. p. 539.

e Vid. Basil. contr. Eunom. lib. i. p. 214, 221.

mingled them in some sort together. But they who desire fuller satisfaction in that other question may please to consult those treatises which are professedly written upon it. What comes in here amounts only to slight touches, and so far only as related to the texts mentioned: which, though justly reckoned definitive on our side, are yet but a very slender part of what the whole Scripture affords us in that cause.