which published the gospel grace, is the Son of God, that fo he might raise an argument, from the dignity of his perfon, to enforce obedience to his doctrine. Now for the Apostle to quote a text which properly does not belong to this meffenger, but only to another nature united to him, and which, properly fpeaking, is his Father; I fay, to quote fuch a text is belides his purpose, becaufe it no way proves the point in hand. And as the words following, in verfe 9. are allowed to be fpoken of the man Chrift Jefus, fo, I think, I may fay of these two verses, as the Reverend Dr. Bennet (in his difcourfe of the trinity, in page 85.3) faith of Phil. ii. 511. Let any man attentively read St. Paul's words, and he can't but perceive, that the very fame intelligent Being, whole throne is for ever and ever; the Scepter of whofe kingdom is a Scepter of righteousness; who is called God, and is addreffed to as the Son of God, as in ver. 8. is the very fame as he, who because he loved righteousness, and hated iniquity (in the exereife of his miniftry) therefore his God and Father anointed him with the oil of gladness above his fellowmeffengers, as at verfe 9. I fay, whoever attentively reads thefe words. can't but perceive, that what is faid in thefe two verfes, is applied by the Pfalmift, and by the Apostle, to one and the fame intelligent Being. Thus I have confidered and ftated the cafe, with refpect to the fpecies of mankind; and have fhewn, that the perfon of Chrift is a man, properly fo called, upon my principles. But before I leave this point, I think it proper to remind Mr. Claggett, that however this matter ftands with refpect to me, yet the perfon of Chrift could not be a man, properly fo called, upon his principles. I have already obferv'd, that the true and only fandard of the fpecies of mankind, is this, wiz. only only one individual intelligent rational spirit, fo united to only one individual human body, as that thefe two, in their united state, doconftitute one individual perfon: Ifay, one, and only one of each of thefe, in their united state, do conftitute a man, properly fo called, becaufe Adam, the first man, and all the men that ever fprang out of his loins, fo far as we ever had any knowledge of them, were conftituted of only one of each of thefe, united as aforefaid. Now forafmuch as the perfon of Chrift (upon Mr. Claggett's principles) was conftituted of two diftinct intelligent rational fpirits, united to one human body, it will follow, that the perfon thus conftituted cannot be a man, properly fo called; becaufe that excefs of parts which takes place in fuch a perfon does effentially difference him from that which is made the standard of the fpecies of mankind. To conclude this point, I fay, if what Mr. Claggett fo earnestly contends for, be truth, viz. that the rational fpirit in our Saviour, which he calls his human foul, is in fact of the fame fpecies (confidered as a rational fpirit) and ftands upon a level with the rational fpirits in all other men; then it will follow, by unavoidable confequence, that the real Son of God, our Lord Jefus Chrift is, with refpect to his nature, a man, and but a man, and no more than a 'man, which "I think is plainly Socinianifm: for as to the fubftantial power and wisdom of the Father, which Mr. Claggett calls Christ's divinc nature, these I have fhewn are in no refpect the Son of God: nay, they are fo far from being the Son of God, that on the contrary they are the Father of God's Son. And the Socinians do not affert that thefe effential properties of the Father are a man, and no more than a man. All that they affirm, is, that the very Son of God, or that Being which truly ftands in the relation of a Son to God, and who faith of himself that God is his Father: it is this Being that they affirm is a man, and but a man, and no more than a man. It is this very Being which Mr. Claggett hath taken fo much pains to prove is a man, and but a man, and no more than a man, of which the Socinians affirm, as aforefaid. And thus his principles do plainly iffue in Socinianifm. Whether his principles, in this point, are true or falfe, I have no need to difpute with him, becaufe it makes no alteration, with respect to my arguments, the Son being equally inferiour and fubordinate to his God and Father, whether his rational fpirit, confidered as a rational fpirit, be of the fame, or of a different fpecies from the rational fpirits in all other men. I do not use the term Socinian here as a name of reproach. All that I observe this for, is, to let Mr. Claggett fee that his principles do plainly iffue in what he feems to loath. Neither do I fay, that he is a Socinian, for if I did fo, I fhould do him wrong; for as he holds an excefs of opinion to that of the Socinians, viz. his calling the fubftantial power and wisdom of the Father (which are in fact the very Father) by the name Son, and his adding this imaginary fon to the true and only begotten Son of God: I fay, this excess of opinion does effentially difference him from those chriftians called Socinians, and therefore I do not call him a Socinian. All that I fay is, that his principles do plainly iffue in Socinianifm. My fixth argument ftands thus; 'tis the Son's express declaration in this matter, viz. that he is inferiour and fubordinate to the Father, &c. Mr. Claggett anfwers, that the Son, with respect to his manhood, is inferiour, &c. and confequently allows all that my argument was defigned to prove; for as what he calls the manhood, is the whole and only only begotten Son of the Father; fo what he calls the divine nature (viz. the fubftantial power and wifdom of the Father) this is in no refpect the Son of the Father, but on the contrary, is the Father of God's Son. Now, as my argument relates wholly to the real Son, and is no way concern'd with the imaginary fon of the Father, it will follow, that it remains conclufive, proving what it was produced for, My seventh argument ftands thus, the Son did pray to the Father, in behalf of himself, confe quently the Son is inferiour, &c. Mr. Claggett anfwers, that he allows the premises, but denies the conclufion. He allows, that the Son did pray to the Father in his human nature, and he allows that that nature which prayed was inferiour to the Father, &c. which, if I mistake not, is allowing the conclufion alfo. I have already obferved, that Mr. Claggett diftinguishes the Son of God into two natures, viz. his human, and his divine nature, and have likewife fhewn, that what he calls the buman nature, is the whole and only begotten Son of God; and that what he calls the divine nature, viz. the fubftantial power and wisdom of the Father, is in no refpect the Son of God, but on the contrary, is the Father of God's Son and therefore for Mr. Claggett to oppofe me with an imaginary fon, inftead of the real and very Son of God, is plainly a departing from the question; because I never made fo ridiculous an affertion, as that the fubftantial power and wifdom of the Father (which are in fact the very Father) did pray to the Father, or that they were inferiour and subordinate to him, which, in other words, is to affert, that the Father pray'd to himself, and that he is inferiour and fubordinate to himself. My eighth argument ftands thus, the Son did debafe himself in his taking human nature upon him, so as that he was in a lefs degree of glory after his being a man, than he was in, antecedently to that debasement, confequently the Son is inferiour, &c. In anfwer to which Mr. Claggett goes back to the fubject upon which he had fo long dwelt before, viz. that the perfon of Chrift is not a man upon my principles, and that upon a fuppofition, that if the rational spirit, in the perfon of Chrift, was in a state of glory before his union with a human body, he would not become a man or take upon him human nature by fuch an union: all which I have already anfwer'd. He farther urges, that I fay, this fuper-angelical creature laid afide all the glory and perfection of his nature. But this is not true. I have faid no fuch thing. I have faid, that the Son did debase himfelf, in his taking human nature upon him, and that he was in a lefs degree of glory after his being a man than he was antecedent to that debafement. I have faid, if the Son has paffed thro' fuch a change as to be either leffen'd or increas'd in his perfection and glory, then the confequence is clear, that he is not the fupreme God. And I have faid, seeing that our Lord did, in his highest or divine nature, pafs thro' fuch a change, as from rich to become poor, it will follow, that he is inferiour, &c. But I have not faid, that he laid afide all the glory and perfection of his nature. have faid, that the Son did debafe himself in his taking human nature upon him: but if this be an error, I am very free to retract it, when it appears to me to be fo. There are many fayings of our Saviour, which feem to fuppofe the pre-existence of his rational part, antecedent to his birth from his mother's womb. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world. Again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. Now, as these words can, in no refpect, be applied to the effential power and I |