two things, so I cannot, with any colour of truth, be said to affirm that which in fact is no more than the inference of another man. Suppofe Mr. Claggett fhould affirm, that God hath foreordained every thing which cometh to pass; and if I should infer from hence, that God is or was the author of fin, upon this principle, and tho my inference would be juft; yet I could not, I could not, with any colour of justice or honesty, in this cafe, fay, that Mr. Claggett affirmed God is or was the author of fin, because he made no fuch affirmation. And tho, by bafe infinuations, falfhood, and flander, he hath given occafion for the raifing of men's anger against me; yet I fhall purfue him with no other revenge, than barely to remind him of his faults, and defire God to give him repentance, and a better mind. Whether he will reflect upon, and repent of all that groundless cenfure, and uncharitableness, which he hath fhewed himself to be guilty of, I know not; but this I know, that it is a matter of the greatest concern to him. And if he should be under a ftrong perfuafion, that he is of the number of God's elect, and that God fees not fin in his people, and fo fhould think himself fecure from danger, how contrary foever he acts to the gospel rule; yet, I fear, fuch a perfuafion will be but a weak fecurity at the day of judgment. Again

I obferve, that as I have afferted, and undertaken to prove, by eight fcripture arguments; that the Son of God, our Lord Jefus Chrift, is a Being inferiour and fubordinate to his God and Father; and that the God and Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, is only, and alone, the fupreme God; fo by the term fon, in this afsfertion, I meant only that Being which the fcriptures call the Son, and the only begotten Son of God, and which Being himself calls God his Father: I fay, I meant this perfon or Being, and him only, and not any thing else that men may be pleafed to call the Son, which in reality, and in fact, is not fo. I farther obferve, that as Mr. Claggett undertook to confute my arguments; fo he hath been pleased to substitute an imaginary Son, in the room and place of that true and real Son of God, which my arguments relate to. I call that Son of God, with with he oppofeth me, an imaginary Son, because in fact it is no other. Now that I may truly state the cafe, I obferve Mr. Claggett diftinguishes the Son of God into two natures, viz. his human, and his divine nature; and I fuppofe, that under these two terms, he comprehends all that he calls the Son of God. By the human nature, I apprehend, he means that man of whom St. Peter fpeaks, Ats ii. 22. Ye men of Ifrael, bear these words, Jefus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, wonders, and figns, which God did by him in the midst of you, as you your felves alfo know. And of whom St. Paul faith, in Acts xvii. 31. He (viz. God) hath appointed a day, in which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained. Now, that this human nature, this man, is the only begotten Son of God, I verily believe; and fo in this point, I fuppofe, Mr. Claggett and I are agreed. And if I can prove, that what he calls the divine nature, is fo far from being, in fact, the Son of God, that on the contrary it is the Father of God's Son, then it will follow, by an unavoidable confequence, that the Son of God, which he pleads for, is but an imaginary Son; and that what he calls the human nature, is the

true,

true, and whole, and all that is the Son of God. I fhall not take notice of all the definitions which he hath given of this Son, but only of that which is most plain and eafy to be understood. He faith, that the Son is the fubftantial wisdom of the Father; and that Chrift is the power of God, and the wifdom of God effentially, by the Father's communicating his effence to the Son, and that God hath not qualities, every thing in God is his effence, &c. page 14. Here I obferve, power and wisdom, as they are attributes (or properties, or perfections, or whatever names they are called by) which take place in God without measure; fo they may be confider'd in three refpects; first, with respect to themselves, as they are effential properties in him; fecondly, with refpect to their use and exercife; and, thirdly, with refpect to the effects and produce of them. And

First, With respect to power and wisdom, as they are effential properties in God. Now as power and wifdom always fuppofes a fubject which they take place in; fo if we confider them feparate from that fubject, they are not; because there is no fuch thing in nature, as power and wisdom, confider'd separate from any fubject: and confequently the power and wisdom of God, confider'd separate from the fubject which they take place in, cannot conftitute a son; because in reality they are not, when confider'd separate, as aforefaid. And if we confider wisdom and power as effential properties in God, and confider them as they are in him, then they are in no refpect the Son of God: nay, they are fo far from it, that on the contrary, they are the Father of God's Son. Whatever is effential to, and conftitutes that Being which we call the Father, that properly speaking is the Father; for though the term Father is a relative term, which in its most proper fenfe is expreffive, not of the nature, but the relation of him to whom we apply that term; and though the act, by which a child or fon is begotten or produced is effential to, and is that which constitutes the fatherhood in this cafe; yet that act is not the father, but only the act of the father, or rather the act of that being who becomes or is conftituted a father by that act, and whofe fatherhood or fatherly relation is founded in it, and flows from it: and therefore whatever is effential to, and constitutes that being which we call the father, that, properly speaking, is the father. And forafmuch as the substantial power and wisdom of God, or the Father, are effential to, and in part conftitute that Being which we call God, or the Father; therefore that fubftantial power and wisdom are the very Father, though they are not the whole or all that is the Father. And with refpect to these, there is no room to difpute, whether they are begotten by a neceffity of nature, or by a freedom of will; because they are not begotten at all. God is neceffarily a wife and powerful Being, and his wisdom and power take place in him, antecedent to all caufes, and confequently are never begotten: and therefore to fay, that God or the Father begets this Son (viz. his effential power and wifdom, which in fact are himself) by a neceffity of nature; and to fay, that he begets thefe by a permanent act, is a contradiction: because, as there is no act exercised in this cafe, fo it is the fame as to fay, that God, or the Father, begat or gave Being to himself. Befides the relation of Father and Son neceffa

rily supposes two distinct individual Beings, the one begetting or producing the other. Take away this, and the relation is not, it being impoffible in nature that the fame individual being should be both father and fon to himself; that he should beget himself, and be begotten of himself; that he should be the cause and the effect to himself: and therefore, to make the fame individual being, to be both father and fon to himself, is to introduce the utmost confufion, by fuppofing the relations of father and fon to take place, where in reality, and in fact, they do not. And confequently the effential power and wisdom of God, confider'd as they are in him, cannot be the Son of God, upon any account, or in any fenfe whatever. That St. Paul affirms Chrift to be the power and wisdom of God, as in 1 Cor. i. 24. I readily grant; and that he is fo in the fenfe of which St. Paul affirms it of him, I verily believe, viz. the wisdom and power of God was abundantly manifefted in and by him, in the work of man's falvation; and in this fenfe Jefus Chrift may well be faid, to be the power of God, and the wisdom of God: but that the anointed Saviour, or Son of God, is the very and substantial power and wisdom of God, as they are effential properties in him, this I deny, upon the grounds before mention'd.

Secondly, The power and wifdom of God may be confider'd with respect to their use and exercife. Now tho wisdom and power are neceffarily in him, yet he is entirely free in the use and exercise of these; fo that he exercises them, when, where, and howfoever he pleases. Thus, he exercifed his power, wisdom, and goodness, in the creation of this world. And as he created it when he did; fo he might have done it fooner, or not have done it to this day, if he had pleas'd; which abundantly proves, that the exercife of these depends wholly upon God's good pleasure. And if we should be fo weak, as to call the exercise of these, by the name of the Son of God; yet this Son would be the product of freedom and choice, which Mr. Claggett will not allow the Son of God to be. And as God is pleafed to manifeft, or fhew forth his glory, in the exercise of these; fo his Son Chrift is faid to be, the brightness of bis glory; because the wisdom, goodness, love, and mercy of God, (his darling attributes) were exercised in the work of man's falvation in and through him, in a more plentiful and full manner than had ever been exercised towards the sons of men; and so he might well be said, to be the brightness of his Father's glory.

Thirdly, The power and wifdom of God may be confider'd with respect to the effects and produce of them. Now as the exercife of God's power and wifdom is from freedom and choice, and depends wholly upon his good pleafure, fo it will follow, that whatever is produced by them must be fo: and confequently, if God hath, or fhall beget, create, make, or any other way produce, a Son, or Sons, in the use and exercife of his effential power and wifdom, fuch a Son, or Sons, would be begotten, created, made, (or whatever way they are produced) not from a neceffity of nature, but wholly and folely from the freedom of his will; and fo fuch a Son of God, would not be the Son of God, which Mr. Claggett hath been pleading for. And if we should

make

make all the effects and produce of God's effential power and wisdom to be the Son of God, then it will follow, that as this is a contingent Son, so he is conftituted or compounded of this ball of earth on which we tread, with all its inhabitants, and all the reft of God's works; but this is fo monftrous as no man in his fenfes will be fuppofed to own.

Thus I have confider'd the fubftantial power and wifdom of God, both with refpect to themselves, as they are effential properties in him, and with respect to the use and exercise of these, and alfo with respect to the effects and produce of them: and have fhewed, that they neither do, nor can afford any fuch Son of God as Mr. Claggett contends for: and confequently fuch a fon is but an imaginary fon, and not the true and real Son of God, which the fcriptures give us an account of. It is fuch a fon as hath no foundation in the nature of things, nor in the chriftian revelation. I have no need to take notice of the parallel he draws betwixt the fun, with its light, and the father, with this imaginary fon: which, upon examination, I find to be as little to his purpose as the reft. I fay, there is no need for me to take notice of thefe, feeing he hath plainly fhewn, that the Son, which he is arguing for, is the fubftantial power and wisdom of the Father; and confequently is not a fon in reality, or in fact, but only in imagination. Nay, that he is fo far from being the real and very Son of the Father, that on the contrary he is the Father of God's Son. And as he hath substituted an imaginary fon, fo he hath excluded the real and true Son of God out of the queftion; whereas my arguments relate wholly to the real Son of God, and not to that imaginary fon which he hath substituted in his ftead. By the real Son I mean, that divine perfon (that man, consisting of foul and body, which Mr. Claggett calls the human nature) which was prophefied of, and promised to the Jews as their Meffiah; which was born of the Virgin, and was baptized of John in Jordan; and upon whom the Holy Ghost defcended in a bodily fhape, and refted upon him, and fo he was anointed to his office with the Holy Ghost, and with power; and to whom God bare witness by an audible voice from heaven, faying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleafed; that man which preached the gofpel of peace, which fuffered death upon the cross, which was raised from the dead, and afcended into heaven, and is exalted at the right hand of God, whom the heavens must retain till the reftitution of all things; that man whom God hath made both Lord and Christ, as in Acts ii. 36. I fay, this heavenly perfon, this man, is the true and only begotten Son of God, and him alone. And I challenge Mr. Claggett to prove, from fcripture, any other only begotten Son of God, but he. This is the Son of God which my arguments relate to. Now if he hath proved this Son to be equal to the Father, and to be the fupreme God, then I acknowledge my arguments confuted. But, alas, he is fo far from doing this, that on the contrary he owns this real Son to be inferiour and fubordinate to the Father; and fo allows all that I have afferted. It is this real Son of God which I affirm to be the true Chrift; and if in fo doing I have set up a false chrift, or preached another gofpel, as Mr. Claggett reprefents me to have done, then let him go on with his anathema's. It is this real Son of God, who in H 2 the

the days of his flesh was Emanuel, or God with us, as in Matt. i. 22, 23. It is this Son of God which was the principal fubject of, and the fubftance of the promises which God had made to mankind; and fo he was Jehovah our righteousness. When God was going to fulfil his covenant and promise which he had made to Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, by bringing the children of Ifrael out of Egypt into the good land of Canaan, he tells them, as in Exod. vi. 3. that by the name Jehovah he had not been known to them; but now they fhould know that he is to them Jehovah their God, that is, a God keeping or fulfilling his covenant and promife with them, as in verfes 7, 8. So when he fulfil'd his great covenant-promife, in fending the Meffiah, this perfon was to be called, Jehovah our righteousness, as in Jer. xxiii. 6. that is the fulfilling of God's covenant, for our righteousness or juftification: not that this perfon was properly Jehovah, or the covenant-keeper, but he was called Jehovah, as the covenant was fulfill'd in him, the name being transferr'd from him that had made and kept this covenant, to him that was the fubject or thing promifed. That names are thus transferred, from one person to another, in the fcriptures, fee Pfalm xxiv. 6. This is the generation of them that feek him, that Jeek thy face [O Jacob] here the name [Jacob] is transferr'd to the [God of Jacob] It is this Son, or Lamb of God, who is fet down with his Father in his throne, to whom the Saints return their thankful acknowledgment, for that he hath redeemed them to God, by his blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, as in Rev. iii. 21, and 5, 9.

If it should be here replied (from another quarter) that tho the man Christ Jefus is the only begotten Son of God; and tho his perfon is called by that name in the fcriptures, upon the account of, and only with respect to, his human nature; yet the man Chrift Jefus is not all, or that whole perfon, which is called the only begotten Son of God; becaufe that person, which is fo called, is conftituted of the Logos or word (which in fact is the very or fupreme God) and the man Christ Jefus (which in fact is the only begotten Son of God) both being united in, and fo conftituting one and the fame perfon, viz. the perfon of the Meffiah, according to the teftimony of St. John, as in John i. 14. And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, &c.

I anfwer, first, I have already obferv'd, that whatever is effential to, and conftitutes that Being which we call God, or the Father, that in reality is the very Father; and therefore if the Logos or word is in fact effential to, and (either in whole or in part) conftitutes that Being which is the very or fupreme God, then the Logos or word is (in whole or in part) in reality, and in fact, the very Father of God's Son; because he is effential to, and in part conftitutes that Being which is fo. For whatever union there may be betwixt the fupreme God and the man Chrift Jefus (which is his only begotten Son) yet that union cannot be perfonal, fo as that these two being united constitute one and the fame individual perfon; because fuch perfonal union effectually destroys the relation of father and fon, it being a direct contradiction to fuppofe one and the fame individual perfon to be both father and fon to himself. The relation of father and fon neceffarily fuppofes two diftinct individual beings as I have

al