С НА Р. IV. The Divinity of Chrift proved from the three first Gospels. UR author, in his hiftorical works, gives himself no trouble with the multiplied proofs of the Divinity of our Saviour, produced from the Gospel-history. With a fingle touch of his befom of deftruction, he sweeps them all away; as if no one would ever dare to offer any proofs of this doctrine from the Gospels, or fo much as look into them for this purpose, after he has told them that none are to be found there." Jefus Chrift," he says,-" made no other pre"tenfions," than that he was a mere man," referring all "his extraordinary power to God his Father:-and it is "most evident that the apostles, and all those who conversed "with our Lord, before and after his refurrection, confider"ed him in no other light than fimply as a man approved "of God by figns and wonders which God did by him *." -"If we look into the Gospel-history, we shall find that "all that our Saviour himself taught, or infinuated, were “his divine miffion in general, or his being the Meffiah in particular, with the doctrine of the refurrection, and that "of himself coming again to raise and judge the world."He never told the difciples, that he had pre-existed, or "that he had any thing to do before he came into the "world +." Again he fays, " If we look into the Gospels "and the book of Acts, we shall find that thofe fublime "doctrines (of the pre-existence and divinity of Christ) as "they (the Fathers) call them, were not taught in an early "period: For none of the three firft Gofpels make the "leaft 66 Hift. of Cor. vol. i. p. 2. Hift. Earl. Op. vol. iii. p. 64, "leaft mention of any thing in the perfon or nature of "Chrift, fuperior to those of other men *." The fuppofed filence of the three first Evangelifts, and of our Saviour himself, on the head of the Divine nature, conftitutes the foundation of two of the chief arguments urged by Dr P. against the divinity and pre-existence of Chrift +. We might well be filled with astonishment at the audacity of these affertions, were not admiration itself incapable of any further exertion, with respect to men who have already gone the length of denying the Lord who bought us. But as we are, not difpofed implicitly to receive the Doctor's determinations, we fhall inquire, what evidences of the divinity of Chrift occur in the teftimonies given by the Evangelifts? and alfo confider his own teftimony to this purpofe, as recorded by them. Our author especially fixes on the three first Gospels, as not "making the leaft mention of any thing, in the perfon or nature of Chrift, fuperior to those of other men :" and these, indeed, have not generally been viewed as containing much evidence in fupport of this doctrine. Therefore, they demand our particular attention. To avoid repetition, we fhall view them in connexion. It is granted, that the primary defign, both of our Lord, and of his minifters, was to prove his divine miffion, as the promifed Meffiah. This appears, not only from his dif courses, but from the distinct teftimonies given by the Evangelifts. For, this point being once established, true faith would neceffarily infer, that Jefus was juft fuch a Saviour as the prophets foretold; a divine Perfon, Immanuel, JEHOVAH, JEHOVAH our righteousness, JEHOVAH-ROPHI, JEHOVAH of bofts, &c. With no propriety could he have been acknow Earl. Opin. vol. iii. p. 158, 159. ledged ledged as the promised Meffiah, had he not produced the moft decifive evidences of divinity. For the prophets had ufed fuch language, as to exclude every one, but a divine Perfon, from any claim to that character. Accordingly, the very fame circumftances which proved that he was Meffiah, inconteftably proved that he was God over all. For, although he acted in concurrence with the Father and Spirit, he nevertheless acted by his own power. Therefore, he expressly informs his hearers that he could have no claim to be received as Meffiah, unless he performed works properly divine. John x. 37. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But befides these evidences of divinity that arife from his character as Meffiah, even the three first Gofpels afford a variety of others, of a distinct nature, fufficient to fatisfy faith. Jefus is defcribed as Immanuel, or God with us, Mat. i. 23. and the Evangelifts were not acquainted with fuch refinement of speech, as to fuppofe that this should mean a mere man with us, however remarkably he might be diftinguished by his holiness. Socinians have not yet dif proved the authenticity of this paffage; though their batteries have been pointed against it for many centuries. Dr P. himself, in one of his treatises, grants that it is authentic; though, fince the publication of that work, he has clearly renounced the doctrine of the miraculous conception, as having "too much the air of fable," as "an in"confiftent and ill-digefted ftory." But this only verifies what is written concerning fome, that they wax worse and worfe, deceiving, and being deceived t. Indeed, he makes such a handle of the doctrine, while pretending to acknowledge the authenticity of the paffage, that perhaps it was the faireft way to reject it entirely. In his Familiar Illufirations, fpeaking of the name Immanuel, he fays; "If * Earl. Opin. vol. iv. p. 120. 123. † 2 Tim. iii. 13. 6 we we confider other inftances of names imposed by the di"vine direction in the fcriptures, we fhall find that they "do not always exprefs any thing characteristic of the per"fon on whom they are impofed, but that they were in"tended to be a memorial of fome divine promise or af"furance, refpecting things of a public or general con"cern." To this purpose he mentions the names of Isaiah's children Shearjafhub and Mahershalalhafhbaz, Ifa. vii. 3. viii. 1. But the Doctor does not refuse that the name Immanuel had fome relation to the work that Jefus was to perform. Therefore, it was, at least, in so far "charac"teristic of the perfon." But this can in no fense be said of the other names referred to. What was to be done by the fons of Isaiah? He adds; "Of Jerufalem it is faid, This "is the name wherewith fhe fhall be called, The Lord our "Righteousness, (Jer. xxxiii. 16.)" But this is not in point. For the Doctor ought to know that the literal translation of thefe words is, This is he who shall call her, or, He, wha fball call her, is the Lord, &c. He further fays; "In like manner the divine Being, by "appointing Chrift to be called Emmanuel, engaged to "manifeft his own prefence 'with his people, by protecting "and bleffing them, and inflicting vengeance on their ene"mies and oppreffors. For this prediction was given up"on the occafion of an invasion by the Ifraelites and Sy"rians." Had this name been impofed upon any child born in that age, our author might have had some reason for what he fays. But what fecurity could it be to the people of Judah, on occafion of a prefent invafion, that a child *P. 28. 29. In our progrefs, we shall frequently refer to this treatife; because the Doctor himself refers his reader to it, for "the right under"ftanding of these particular texts," often barely mentioned in his hi ftory. It would be ungenerous, then, to deprive ours of fo fignal a be child fhould be born about eight hundred years afterwards, who should receive the name Immanuel; if this was all? Had our author been exposed to fuch imminent danger, it may be prefumed that he would have reckoned this very poor confolation. He makes the fign to lie in God's "ap"pointing Chrift to be called Immanuel." But neither in the prophecy, nor in the gospel history, have we the exprefs appointment of this name; but only a prediction of this as the event. Therefore, the fign did not confist in the appointment of the name; nor even principally in the name itself; but in the miraculous circumstance of a virgin bearing a fon, and in his really being what the name denoted. The truth of this appears from various confiderations. The danger was so imminent, that extraordinary fecurity was requifite. Judah feems to have been, at this time, threatened with a total deftruction. But the mere appointment of a fignificative name, our author himself being judge, would have been nothing uncommon. The manner in which the fign was offered, fhews that it was to be of a miraculous kind: Ajk thee a sign of the Lord thy God; afk it either in the depth, or in the height above, Ifa. vii. 11. This does not imply a verbal, but a real fign. That which is promised, is made to confift in the two things already mentioned: A VIRGIN fhall conceive, and bear a Son, and fball call his name IMMANUEL. It is introduced with a note of wonder; Behold! God claims the work as peculiarly his own; JEHOVAH bimfelf fhall give you a fign. This language undoubtedly fignifies, that the very giving of this sign should be a special and extraordinary display of divine grace and power. But all these things the Doctor finds it moft expedient to pafs over in filence. As the promise of this fign was to be the great fupport of the faith of believers, till it fhould be fulfilled, as it was of |