vertible terms, used by the Evangelift to exprefs 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 dispensed under the gofpel, was peculiarly referved to be difpenfed by the word, or Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. For these reasons, it feems very unlikely to me, that the true sense of the foremention'd text should be, that the word was made or united to a whole man, foul and body.

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 fecond cafe already confider'd. I fay, whichever of these be the true fenfe, it makes no alteration with respect 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 Christ. And so I fhall pass 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 constitutes that whole fon who is fo called. And as his Being or perfon, is the Son of God; fo he is a distinct individual Being or perfon from that God whofe Son he is. So that tho Mr. Claggett hath undertaken the confutation of my arguments, yet he has fallen vaftly fhort 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.

per

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 first and supreme cause and, thirdly, that he is the free caufe of the Son's being and existence. The first of these Mr. Claggett allows, by afferting, that the Father begets the Son by a neceffity of nature, and confequently he must be the caufe 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 himself, as in page 14. and fecondly, by maintaining, that the man Christ Jefus, which he calls the human nature (and which is the true and only begotten Son of God) is in his nature both

body

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 himself, which I think he hath allow'd, then it will follow, by unavoidable confequence, that the man Christ 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 fubftantial 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 unconcern'd with it. I have afferted nothing concerning God, or the Father, and his effential properties, which are himself, and not his Son, but only concerning God and his only begotten Son; and therefore in what he hath to fay, with refpect to this imaginary fon, he fights without an adversary, with respect 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 less is blessed of the better. In answer 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 af" firm, he denies."

In reply to which, I defire it may be obferv'd, that what he faith, is his mistake; for I have afferted nothing, with refpect to a fuperiority of nature, but only with respect to the relation in which the Father and Son stand in one to another. The terms fuperiour and inferiour, fupreme and fubordinate, are relative terms, which, in their moft proper fenfe, are expreffive, not of the nature, but only of the relation which one intelligent rational being stands in to others. Thus, the Mayor of Salisbury is inferiour and fubordinate to King George, tho they are both of one fpecies or kind of effence, confider'd 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 exercises 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 authority 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 afferted, that the substantial 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 Christ Jefus, which Mr. Claggett calls, Chrift's human nature, and which he allows was

I 2

ex

exalted, as in page 27. "It is manifest enough (faith he) that the text points out the exaltation of Chrift's human 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 unfhaken.

Here it feems proper for me to obferve, that Mr. Claggett puts the question 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 ufed the distinction only for argument's fake; and therefore Chrift's highest nature, or his most divine part, with refpect to my principles, is his rational or fpiritual part, as diftinguished from his fleshy or bodily part.) He repeats this queftion, in other places of his book, and opposes to me what I have faid of Chrift, in the twenty eighth page of my book. To which I answer, what I faid, in the page referr'd 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 not; for tho Chrift was highly honoured before his debasement, 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 fo might have a name above every name, that to him every one should give an account of himself. But fuppofing the aforefaid queftion did bring me under a difficulty, which, as I have obferv'd, 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 queftion, I beg leave to put the fame queftions to him as I once did to a neighbouring gentleman.

1. Which was the higheft exaltation of the humanity 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 hand of the Supreme God?

2. When the humanity of Jefus Chrift was thus united to, or taken into the fupreme God, muft it not be again feparated from, or taken out of him, before it could be capable of being exalted at his right hand?

The reason 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 supreme 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 highest exaltation that it was poffible for God to give, or for a man to partake of. Secondly, the Athanafians hold, that the humanity of Je

fus

us Chrift was fo taken into perfonal union with the second 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 right hand of God. This being fo, I fay, upon a fuppofition that the humanity of Jesus Christ 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 first person, by being exalted at his right hand, than it did from the Son, or fecond perfon, by being taken into perfonal union with him, which could not have been if the Son himself had been the fupreme God: or elfe, fecondly, if the Son was himself 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, allow'd what I took for granted, viz. that the fo taking of a man into personal union with the fupreme God, as aforefaid, was the highest exaltation that it was poffible for God to give, or for a man to partake of. Again he allow'd, what the Athanafians do hold, viz. that the humanity of Jefus Chrift was fo united to the second person of the trinity, as that it and that fecond perfon do conftitute but one individual perfon, in their united state, and that this united perfon is the fupreme God: but then, left he should be brought into a dilemma (as he call'd it) he in effect denied what the fcriptures do affert, viz. that the perfon of Christ, 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 allow'd, 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 anfwers, 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

con

confequently the Son is fubordinate and inferiour, &c. Mr. Claggett answers, that the Son, in his human nature, is God's fervant, and fubmiffively obeys the Father, and the Father is 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 those 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 anfwers, by fuppofing 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 anfwer, upon a fuppofition that Chrift 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. Clagget'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 so. Thus Christ 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 his work. Chap. v. 43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another hall come in his own name, bim 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 to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it,but last of all he fent unto them his fon, Saying they will reverence my fon. In the works here referred to, I fuppofe, it will be allowed that the Son was the Father's agent, viz. in the publication of his Father's will; because in this performance, as he acted by commiffion from his Father; fo he did it in the exercise of his own natural power: which natural power, I call a derived power; because he derived it originally from his Father, and so it was the Father's power. But perhaps Mr. Claggett will turn it upon me, and fay, that he was an agent in his human nature only. To which Ianfwer, what he calls, the human nature viz. the man Chrift Jefus, I fay, was the whole and only begotten Son of God. And what he calls, the divine nature of the Son, viz. the fubftantial power and wisdom of the Father, I have shewn, can in no fense be call'd the Son of the Father; because it is in fact the very Father himself: and confequently the Son, which my argument refers to, was the Father's agent, as aforefaid,

Now I come to confider what Mr. Claggett hath to fay, with respect to my afferting, that Chrift, or the Son of God, created the world. I need not go into all the turnings and windings of his argument. It is fufficient to my purpose to obferve, that when I afcribed creating power to the Son, I did it in

no