word GOD is not applied to angels or men in a proper sense, (as the name of Potentate, King, or Lord may) but in a loose, figurative, improper sense only.

IV. His fourth is to show, that the FATHER has some characteristics annexed to the name GOD, which determine him to be the first Cause. He is the high GOD, most high GOD, &c. In proof hereof, he produces about fourteen passages of the Old Testament, which certainly prove all that they prove of the JEHOVAH, or GOD of Israel, in opposition to nominal or reputed Gods; not of the FATHER only, in opposition to the Son, who is himself JEHOVAH as well as the FATHER. He has also three texts out of the New Testament, which undoubtedly prove, that the FATHER is GOD Most High, or GOD Supreme, (which is equally true of GOD the SON, Rom. ix. 5.) above all reputed or nominal Gods: but it is not proved that he has any real, any true, any adorable God besides him, or under him.

V. His fifth is designed to reconcile two contradictory propositions, that there are more GODS than one, and not more GODS than one; where he comes off very indifferently. For his intent is to intimate, that there are more adorable Gods, more true Gods than one; which is directly repugnant to the Scripture doctrine of one GOD. There are many reputed or nominal Gods; that is very certain. But more adorable Gods than one, neither Law nor Gospel can bear.

VI. His sixth proposition carries on the same design with the fifth, to make FATHER and SON two adorable GODS, and to teach us to serve the creature besides the Creator, and to pay our homage and acknowledgments to one that by nature is no GOD. It will be hard to persuade any into those measures who have the use of their Bibles; which will teach them the contrary, quite through from Genesis down to the Revelations.

Brief Strictures upon his two Columns.

Page 6, he cites some texts to prove, that the FATHER alone, exclusive of the SON, is the only GOD, or only true GOD: which the texts neither say nor mean. For the same Scriptures assert, that the SON is GOD, True GOD, Great GOD, JEHOVAH, Almighty, &c. as well as the FATHER. Therefore the exclusive terms could never be intended in opposition to GOD the Son, but to idols, or pretended deities.

Page 7, he makes a dull harangue about person and essence; instead of showing, that FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST may not be or are not one GOD. This is a Scriptural doctrine, independent of the names of person or essence, and such as was fully believed and taught, for a century and more, before ever those terms came in. Not but that those terms are useful, in opposition to the wiles and equivocations of heretics, which were the first occasion of them: nor are they difficult to understand, whenever considered without prejudice and with an honest mind. But it is enough for common Christians to believe, that FATHER, SON, and HOLY GHOST are all equally divine, that one is not another, nor all together three GODS, but one GOD: one GOD, into whom we have been baptized, and whom we are ever to serve, worship, and adore, with all our heart, mind, and might.

Page 8, he insists much upon the personal pronouns, I, thou, he: which can never be proved to be constantly applied in Scripture, to none but single persons. Besides, that the arguments from the pronouns, at most, can prove no more than this; that it is the Scripture way to speak but of one Person at a time, (be it FATHER, OR SON, or HOLY GHOST,) under the title of GOD, Lord, JehoVAH, &c. tacitly considering the other two Persons as united to, or comprehended in, that one Person spoken of: which, if it be the case, is so far from proving that all the three are not one GOD, that it is rather a confirmation of it, that they really are. But we have examples where one

GOD, or LORD of hosts, is mentioned, and yet the expressions are plural as to the Persons. "GOD said, Let us "make man in our image," Gen. i. 26. "GOD cre"ated man in his own image, in the image of GOD," ver. 27. GOD creates, while more Persons than one create: and it is God's image, which is the image of more Persons than one: therefore more Persons than one are included in GOD there mentioned. The like may be shown of the one LORD of hosts mentioned Isa. vi. 3. compared with verse the 8th, and with John xii. 41. and Acts xxviii. 25, 26.

In page 9, he represents it as a strange thing, that the SON should be "that very GOD whose Son he is: "the image, and that which he is the image of." This kind of banter and abuse runs through his whole performance. It is observable, that the force of the cavil lies only in the expression. Say, that the SON, a distinct Person, is united in substance and Godhead with GOD the FATHER; and there is no appearance of absurdity in it. Say, that the Son is personally distinct from the FATHER, and yet one GOD with him; and there is nothing strange or shocking in it. But say, that he is that very GOD whose Son he is, or that very thing of which he is the image; and here begins to appear something harsh and odd. What is the reason? Because the words sound as if the SON were the FATHER himself; were distinct and not distinct at the same time. The Arian notion, of GoD's being but one Person, is first insinuated in the phrase, that very GOD whose Son he is; and next the Athanasian is feigned to join his notion (inconsistent with the other) thereto : and thus he is made to say things that he never meant. The sophistry lies wholly in the artificial blending of ideas. The SON is not that very Person whose Son he is, nor that very Person whose image he is: but he is one GOD with him ; a name common to more Persons than one.

Page 10, he takes notice, that GOD led Jacob alone, yet by the hands of Moses and Aaron: and GOD created the heavens alone, yet by JESUS CHRIST. He should

have added, that if GOD the FATHER be True GOD alone, yet it is to be understood, together with JES S CHRIST. The word alone, in such instances, is not intended in opposition to GOD the SON, but to others: and exclusive terms are not always to be interpreted with the utmost rigour.

Page 11, 12, he pretends that CHRIST, before his incarnation, was GOD's angel, and messenger, and servant. He cannot prove servant at all; nor angel, or messenger, from any parts of Scripture but what, in the very same places, declare him to be Ho Theos, GOD absolutely, Jehovah, LORD GOD, Almighty GOD, &c. From whence it is plain, that the name of angel concerns only his office, not his nature; and is an argument only of the SON'S voluntary condescension to transact matters between GOD the FATHER and mankind.

Page 12, 13, he has some wise reasonings against the SON's glory being eclipsed in the incarnation. He asks, how it could be eclipsed from men, who "then beheld his

66

any

glory more than ever?" By his argument, if the first time a man sees the sun at all, it should be under a cloud, or an eclipse; it is therefore under no cloud, nor under eclipse to that man. In short, though men "beheld his "glory more than ever," yet even then his glory was shrouded under the veil of flesh, and did not shine out to the full; which if it had, no mortal could have looked against it.

Page 12th and 13th, he labours to confound real and essential, with outward and accidental glory: and he is marvellously subtile and profound on that head. The short answer is, that one kind of glory can never be increased or diminished, either in FATHER or SON: the other kind of glory may admit, and has admitted of increase or diminution, both in FATHER and SON, and will so again hereafter.

His cavils (p. 13.) about two Persons in CHRIST are built on nothing but his own mistakes of the definition and meaning of the word person.

His reasoning about even and odd (p. 14.) is odd enough; to answer a jest with a jest.

Page 15, he has some speculations about CHRIST'S being exalted to the universal dominion of all worlds, (a likely charge, indeed, for any creature to sustain,) and becoming a Mighty GOD: as if he had not been as Mighty when he made the worlds, and when he laid the foundations of the heavens and the earth.

Page 16, he observes, that Scripture says nothing of two kingdoms of CHRIST. But the Scriptures do speak of a kingdom which is to cease at the day of judgment, (1 Cor. xv.) and of a kingdom which shall not cease, nor ever have an end, Isa. ix. 7. Dan. xii. 13. Luke i. 33. Heb. i. 8. How to make one kingdom of both may be as difficult, perhaps, as to make the same number even and odd.

Page 17, he pretends, that the SON is to be honoured, only because the FATHER hath made him universal Governor of heaven and earth. How is it then that he was GOD, LORD, and Creator, before the world was? Are not these things as considerable as any thing that came after? And how is it that he is to be honoured, together with the FATHER, and with the same acts of worship, (Rev. v. 13.) to all eternity; even after he shall have laid down this universal kingdom and government, according to our wise author? Surely, if the sole foundation of his honour ceases, his honours should cease with it.

Page 19, he observes, that the Disciples and GOD are one. I know not whether his understanding here failed him most, or his eye-sight. How does he read the text? "That they all may be one-that they also may be one in "us," John xvii. 21. Not that they and we may be one, not that they may be one with us; but only, one with each other in us.

These few Strictures may be sufficient to show, that the author is not to be depended on, in his representations or reasonings. I designed brevity, and therefore I