rity or headship over his church from him, and exercises it under him. But to return to my argument. Mr. Claggett denies that the imaginary Son of God was exalted, about which I have afferted nothing. I have not affected, that the subftantial power and wisdom of the Father (which in fact is the very Father) was exalted, I have only afferted, that the true and real Son of this Father was exalted, viz. the man Chrift Jefus, which Mr. Claggett calls, Chrift's human nature, and which he allows was exalted, as in page 27. "It is manifeft enough (faith he) that the "text points out the exaltation of Chrift's hu“man nature, which was humbled even to "death." Seeing then that the true and only begotten Son of God was exalted, it will follow, that my argument remains unshaken. Here it feems proper for me to observe, that Mr. Claggett puts the queftion to me, how Chrift could be exalted in his highest nature upon my principles. (Note, I have not allowed that Chrift hath two rational natures, but have used the diftinction only for argument's fake; and therefore Chrift's higheft nature, or his moft divine part, with refpect to my principles, is his rational or fpiritual part, as diftinguished from his fleshy or bodily part.) He repeats this question, in other places of his book, and oppofes to me what I have faid of Chrift, in the twenty-eighth page of my book. To which I anfwer, what I faid, in the page referred to, concerning our Saviour, in part refpects what he is, and not what he was; what he is now he is exalted, and not what he was antecedent to it. (As to Chrift's creating the world, I fhall confider it in its proper place.) And fuppofing that this question did put me under a difficulty, which in reality it doth pot; for tho Chrift was highly honoured before his debafement, H 3 yet yet he was capable of being exalted higher by his Father, as a reward of it. He was capable of being exalted at the right-hand of God, to be a prevailing interceffor for his people, and to receive the honour which flows from that relation. He was capable of being conftituted the judge of quick and dead, and la might have a name above every name, that to him every one fhould give an account of himself. But fuppofing the aforefaid queftion did bring me under a difficulty, which, as I have obferved, it doth not, yet I am of the mind that Mr. Claggett's principles bring him under a greater. And feeing we are upon a quef tion, I beg leave to put the fame queftions to him as I once did to a neighbouring gentleman. 1. Which was the bigbeft exaltation of the bumanity of Jefus Chrift, for it to be fo united to the fupreme God (or as the Athanafian creed expreffes it, taken into God) as that it and the fupreme God, which it is united to, do conftitute but one individual Perfon; or, for it to be exalted at the right-band of the fupreme God? 2. When the humanity of Jefus Christ was thus united to, or taken into the fupreme God, must it not be again feparated from, or taken out of him, before it could be capable of being exalted at his right-hand? The reafon of my propofing these questions was, first, because I take it for granted, that the fo taking of a man into perfonal union with the fupreme God, as that the fupreme God and that man do conftitute but one Perfon, was the higheft exaltation that the fupreme God could give, or that man could partake of. I fay, fuch an union, if fuch a thing could be, was (as I conceive) the bigheft exaltation that it was poffible for God to give, or for a man to partake of. Secondly, the Athanafians hold, that the humanity of Jefus Chrift was fo taken into personal union with the fecond Perfon of the trinity, as that it, and that fecond Perfon, do conftitute one individual Perfon, in their united state, and that this united Perfon is the fupreme God. Thirdly, the fcriptures affert, that the Perfon of Jefus Chrift, and confequently the humanity in him, was highly exalted, after his crucifixion, at the righthand of God. This being fo, I fay, upon a fuppofition that the humanity of Jefus Chrift was united to a Perfon, as aforefaid, viz. to the fecond Perfon of the trinity, then, I think, it will unavoidably follow from hence; either, first, that the Son or fecond Perfon is not the fupreme God, because the humanity did receive a higher exaltation from the Father, or firft Perfon, by being exalted at the right-hand, than it did from the Son, or fecond Perfon, by being taken into per-, fonal union with him, which could not have been if the Son himself had been the fupreme God; or elfe, fecondly, if the Son was himfelf the fupreme God, and if the humanity was exalted as high as it was capable by its union with him, then the humanity must be feparated from the Son, and the bond of union must be diffolv'd, before it could be capable of receiving exaltation from the Father. The gentleman, in his answer to my questions, allowed what I took for granted, viz. that the fo taking of a man into perfonal union with the fupreme God, as aforefaid, was the higheft exaltation that it was poffible for God to give, or for a man to partake of. Again he allowed, what the Athanafians do hold, viz. that the humanity. of Jefus Chrift was fo united to the fecond Perfon of the trinity, as that it and that fecond Perfon do conftitute but one individual Perfon, in their united ftate, and that this united Perfon is the fupreme God: but then, left he fhould be 44 brought brought into a dilemma (as he called it) he in effect denied what the fcriptures do affert, viz. that the Person of Chrift, and confequently the humanity in him, was highly exalted at the right-hand of God. But tho' the foremention'd gentleman denied, that the humanity of Christ had any farther exaltation than its union as aforefaid; yet Mr. Claggett has allowed, that Chrift's human nature was exalted after that union, by his allowing that Phil. ii. 9. points out the exaltation of Chrift's human nature, page 27. which exaltation was after his crucifixion. Now if the humanity of Chrift, as he calls it, was fo highly exalted as to be perfonally united to the fupreme God, and fo perfonally united as that it and the fupreme God conftitute one and the fame individual Perfon, I think it will be a difficulty upon him to fhew how this humanity could have any higher exaltation. My third argument ftands thus; the Father is faid to be the God of the Son, therefore the Son is inferiour, &c. Mr. Claggett answers, that the Son, in his human nature, is inferiour and fubordinate to the Father. Now as I have already proved, that the human nature, or the man Chrift Jefus, is the whole and only begotten Son of God; and that what he calls the divine nature is fo far from being the Son, that on the contrary, it is the Father of the Son of God: from hence it will follow, that this argument remains in its full force. My fourth argument ftands thus; the Father is faid to exercise authority, in commanding, and the Son fubmiffion, in obeying the Father's commands; and confequently the Son is fubordinate and inferiour, &c. Mr. Claggett anfwers, that the Son, in his human nature, is God's fervant, and fubmiffively obeys the Father, and the Father is fuperiour fuperiour to the Son, &c. and fo he here allows all that I have been proving in my argument, viz. that the true and only begotten Son of God is inferiour, &c. and all that he offers against me, is that the Father's effential properties, which are the very Father, are not inferiour to himself, which I have never denied. My fifth argument ftands thus; the Son is the Father's agent, in thofe acts which are afcribed unto him; and the Son received from the Father both direction and ability for their performance; confequently the Son is inferiour, &c. This Mr. Claggett answers, by supposing that creating power is uncreated power, and that this power is incommunicable, and that the Son did not create as an agent, but as a co-efficient, and thus he thinks he hath confuted my argument. To which I answer, upon a fuppofition that Christ was not the Father's agent in creating the world, yet my argument remains in full force notwithstanding, because if this evidence proves defective, yet I have produced other evidence to prove my point, in which Chrift was an agent or factor for his Father, according to Mr. Claggett's fenfe of that term. An agent, he faith, is one that acts by commiffion from another, in the use and exercise of his own natural power. Let it be fo. Thus Chrift acted by commiffion from his Father, in the publishing of his Father's will, and in demanding the fruits of his Father's vineyard, as in John iv. 34. Jefus faid unto them, my meat is to do the will of him that fent me, and to finish bis work. Chap. v. 43. I am come in my Father's. name, and ye receive me not; if another fhall come in his own name, him ye will receive. Chap. vi. 38. I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that fent me. Matt. xxi. 34, 37. And when the time of fruit drew near, he fent his fervants |