.

tuted would not be a man, which the fcriptures represent the person of Christ to be, a man being conftituted of only one individual intelligentrational fpirit, united to only one individual human body; these two, and they only, in their united ftate, being that which constitutes a man, properly fo called: whereas if there are two rational fpirits, united to one human body, in the perfon of Chrift; this excefs of parts would effentially difference him in that which is made the standard of the fpecies of mankind, and confequently, he would not be a man upon this principle. Secondly, we have no mention of two rational fpirits in the perfon of Chrift, nor any intimation of it in all the Bible. And tho' this doctrine is urged as neceffary to reconcile fome texts of fcripture which clash with each other, according to fome mens interpretation of them; yet this is altogether needlefs because those texts can be easily reconciled, or rather they do not clash, when they are underftood in the most likely and rational fenfe. The true ground or reafon of mens advancing this unfcriptural doctrine, I take to be this. Some men have unjustly inferred from fome texts of fcripture, that Jefus Chrift, or the Son of God, is himfelf the fupreme God, whereas the Son himself hath expressly declared the contrary; therefore to remove the difficulty which they themselves have made, they imagine two rational natures in the Person of Chrift; and then they put it off with this pretence, when Christ faith [my Father is greater than I] he did not mean his own perfon, but only a part of it, viz. his human nature, as they call it. I call this, a pretence, because there is no mention of Chrift's having two rational natures in his perfon, nor any intimation of it in all the Bible, as I faid before. My third reafon is, because one rational spirits in the Perfon of Christ, was fufficient

fufficient for all the offices, performances, and works which he was called to, or did perform: and therefore it is very irrational, in my opinion, to fuppofe that he had a fuperfluity, which two rational spirits in his perfon must be, especially if we add to this, what fome maintain, viz. that one of these rational natures was quiescent, was put by as useless, was laid a-fleep in non-activity, if I may fo fpeak. My fourth, and laft reafon is, because our Saviour's words and actions are represented by St. John (in the words after the text) as proceeding from one and the fame fountain of action: the word, the only begotten of the Father, and Jefus Chrift, being used as fynonymous terms to exprefs one and the fame thing. The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us; and we bebeld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. Verse 17. The law was given by Mofes, but grace and truth came by Jefus Chrift. Here we fee, that the word, the only begotten of the Father, and Jesus Christ, are convertible terms, ufed by the Evangelift to express one and the fame thing. They beheld the glory of the word (which they could not have done if he was quiefcent and acted not.) They had feen the wonderful works which he had done, and had heard the gracious words which came out of his mouth, words full of grace and truth: and fo had beheld that glory which God had reserved to, and honoured his only begotten Son with: for tho' the law was given by Mofes, yet that fulness of grace and truth, which was to be difpenfed under the gofpel, was peculiarly referved to be difpenfed by the word, or Jefus Chrift, the only begotten Son of God. For these reasons, it seems very unlikely to me, that the true fenfes of the foremention'd text fhould be, that the word was made or united to a whole man, foul and body, H

As

As to the third and fourth fenfes which may be put upon the foremention'd text, viz. thirdly, the word was made or united to a human body, or fleshy part, and fo became a human foul to that body it was united to: or, fourthly, the word was flesh, or a man; the term flesh being put for the term man, as in the second cafe already confider'd. I fay, whichever of these be the true fenfe, it makes no alteration with refpect to me; because in either of these, the word, and the only begotten Son of God, expreffes, or implies no more than the man Chrift Jefus, which I call, the whole Chrift. And fo I fhall pafs them over without any other remark, but this, viz. that the third cafe fuppofes the existence of our Saviour's rational fpirit, antecedent to his conception in the womb of the Virgin: and the fourth cafe does not deny, nor contradict it. Upon the whole, I fay, as the man Chrift Jefus is called the only begotten Son of God; fo it is he alone which conftitutes that whole perfon who is fo called. And as his Being or perfon, is the Son of God; fo he is a diftinct individual Being or Perfon from that God whose Son he is. So that tho' Mr. Claggett hath undertaken the confutation of my arguments, yet he has fallen vaftly short of it; and confequently they remain in their full ftrength, proving what they were produced for, notwithstanding what he hath urged against them, and this will appear from an examination of the particulars.

My first argument ftands thus, the Son received his Being and existence from the Father, as the first fupreme free cause of that Being and existence confequently he is inferiour, &c. This argument hath three branches; first, that the Father is the caufe; fecondly, that he is the firft and fupreme. caufe; and, thirdly, that he is the free caufe of the Son's being and exiftence. The first of these Mr.

Claggett

Claggett allows, by afferting, that the Father begets the Son by a neceffity of nature, and confequently he must be the cause of the Son. As to the fecond, I fuppofe he allows it; because he hath not, as I can perceive, objected any thing against it. And as to the third branch, he denies it in exprefs words, but allows it in confequence. He denies it, by afferting, that the Father begets the Son, not from the freedom of his will, but from a neceffity of nature. He allows it in confequence, by allowing, first, that God is the most free agent in all things without himfelf, as in page 14 and fecondly, by maintaining, that the man Chrift Jefus, which he calls the human nature (and which is the true and only begotten Son of God) is in his nature both body and foul of the fame fpecies with all other men; the proving (or rather the endeavouring to prove) which point is the burden of his book. Now if the man Chrift Jefus, or the human nature (as Mr. Claggett is pleas'd to call him) is of the fame fpecies with all other men; and if all men are without God, and if God is entirely free, with refpect to the produce of every thing without himfelf, which I think he hath allowed, then it will follow, by unavoidable confequence, that the man Chrift Jefus, or the whole and only begotten Son of God, was begotten, not from a neceffity of nature, but by a freedom of will; and fo the ftrength of my argument is still remaining. As to the imaginary Son of God, viz. the subAtantial power and wifdom of God, or the Father, as this is not the real Son, but, on the contrary, is the Father of the Son of God; fo my argument is wholly unconcerned with it. I have af ferted nothing concerning God, or the Father, and his effential properties, which are himself, and not his Son, but only concerning God and H 2.

his

his only begotten Son; and therefore in what he hath to fay, with refpect to this imaginary fon, he fights without an adverfary, with refpect to me.

My fecond argument ftands thus, the Son receiveth gifts and bleffings from the Father; and confequently is inferiour and fubordinate to the Father, according to St. Paul's way of arguing in Abraham and Melchifedech's cafe, as in Heb. vii. 7. Without all contradiction the lefs is blessed of the better. In anfwer to this, Mr. Claggett "defires it may "be obferv'd, that our controverfy is not about "a fuperiority of order, or office, but of effence "and nature; whether the Son is of the fame "fubftance and effence with the Father or not: "we affirm, he denies."

66

In reply to which, I defire it may be observ'd, that what he faith, is his mistake, for I have afferted nothing, with refpect to a fuperiority of nature, but only with refpect to the relation which the Father and Son ftand in one to another. The terms fuperiour and inferiour, fupreme and fubordinate, are relative terms, which, in their most proper fenfe, are expreffive, not of the nature, but only of the relation which one intelligent rational being ftands in to others. Thus, the Mayor of Salisbury is inferiour and subordinate to King George, tho' they are both of one fpecies or kind of effence, confidered as men. The Mayor of Salisbury is inferiour to King George, as he is King George's fubject, and he is fubordinate to King George, as he hath received authority from him, and excrcifes it under him. So in like manner, upon a fuppofition that the Son of God and his Father are both of one fpecies or kind of effence, yet notwithstanding this, the Son is inferiour to his Father. He is inferiour to him, as he is his Father's fubject (his Father is his God) and he is fubordinate to him, as he hath received autho