N. B. St. Peter preaching to the Jews and St. Paul to the Gentiles, both declared Jesus Christ, to be a man, and did not at this time style him God amongst the Gentiles, who well understood how the word was used among them, to signify persons of distinguished and remarkable characters. Too many such gods they worshipped already: polytheism was the reigning idolatry of all the Gentile world, which [world] was by the apostles to be converted from the worship of many gods, to the worship of the one true God, the author of the universe,

Now it ought to be considered, that when the sacred writers used this word arp of Jesus Christ, they did it in that sense which was common to all that were acquainted with the Greek language, so as that whoever read it in the sacred books might understand it, as it had been used in all books written in that language, otherwise they must have added an expletive, or explanatory term, to inform their readers, wherein they differed in its use from other writers.

ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ, a man.

Christ says concerning himself, speaking to the Jews, Ye seek to kill me, a man who hath told you the truth.' John viii. 40.

St. Paul says, Rom. v. 15, for if through the offence of one [Adam] many be dead; much more'the gift of grace, which is by one nian, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.'

1 Cor. xv. 21, For as by man [Adam] came death; by man [Christ] came also the resurrection of the dead.'

1 Tim. ii. 7, One mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.'

ΥΙΟΣ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΥ, son of man.

'Son of man' is a name, or title, or character, which Christ has given himself so often in the gospels, that it highly deserves to be well considered. St. Matthew has this title thirty times; St. Mark fif

teen times; St. Luke fifteen times; St. John ten times. Upon how many more occasions Christ styled himselfson of man,' cannot now be known by any other writings now extant; but it may be fairly supposed to have been his common and ordinary style, when ne mentioned himself. And most certainly he did this for very good reasons. The critics assign many; but studiously omit the great, and perhaps the only reason, why Chris so often called himself the 'son of man,' which was undoubtedly to prevent the idolatrous notions and practices of his followers in succeeding ages. He, well knowing the great proneness of all nations to deify their heroes; and being sent from God to reform the Jewish nation, and the heathen world, overrun with gross idolatry; he set himself to preach up the necessity of a general repentance, a conversion from all kinds of false worship, to the worship of the one true and living God, in spirit and truth; and a hearty and sincere obedience to his laws; which, indeed, were the true and only means of setting up the spiritual kingdom of the most high God amongst all mankind. This was his chief aim, and his glorious scheme, which he pursued with great zeal, diligence, constancy, and self-denial; far from affecting divine honour, and though attended with miracles, yet declaring, he could do nothing of himself that the Father who dwelt in him did the works-that he sought not his own glory,' &c. John v. 19, iv, 34, xiv. 10, Philip ii. 7, 9.

CHAP. XXXIII.

The human nature of Jesus Christ.

THAT Jesus Christ had the several affections, passions, properties, and infirmities, belonging to the human nature, is not denied by those who embrace the doctrine of the Trinity; but allowed and agreed, I think, universally: yet it may not be amiss to take

notice of some particulars, which are arguments that may convince an unbiassed judgment, that Christ was born, grew up, eat, drank, loved, grieved, wept, was terrified, and died, like other men, &c.

St. Matthew, in the first chapter of the present copies known yet in the west of Europe, incontestably induceth Christ's genealogy from Joseph and his ancestors. If this pedigree be a true one, then Christ had Joseph for his Father; and Mary, as all agree, was his mother. If the pedigree did not truly belong to Jesus Christ, no doubt, the Jews would have exposed it, and shewn its inconsistency with the last verses of the first chapter of St. Matthew, if that was ever seen and read among the first Hebrew Christians. And the inconsistency is such, that it is not possible to reconcile it. And it is observable, that amongst Christ's neighbours and countrymen, and his disciples too, we find, he was always taken for the Son of Joseph. Mat. xiii. 54, 55, 56, Is not this (person) the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary; and his brothers James and Joses, and Simon and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?' Mark vi. 3, are much the same words. Luke iii. 23, owns he was supposed,' or thought, to be the Son of Joseph.' The Nazarenes, with whom he lived near thirty years, hearing him preach, said, Is not this the Son of Joseph ? Luke iv. 22: yet, John vi. 42, the Jews, his hearers, say, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?'. Now all these passages, indeed, are fully consistent with St. Matthew's pedigree, but cannot be reconciled to the eight last verses of his first chapter. Besides, Christ himself, in the four gospels, styles himself above eighty times the son of man ;' one would think, on purpose to obviate any false notions of him in succeeding ages. St. Stephen, Acts vii. 56. and St. John, Rev. i. 15, xiv. 4, call Christ the Son of man.' In all which places it is admitted, and is indeed incontestable, that Christ was "a perfect man,” as it is expressed in the Athanasian creed and he could

and more

not be a perfect man according to that creed, without a reasonable soul, and human flesh; nor could he be a perfect man, if not begotten by a human father, as well as mother, in the usual sense of the words, son of man,' through all the bible. And he could not be "perfect God" in the Athanasian sense, for then he must be Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And if he was perfect man, as Adam was, still he was a created being.

ΥΙΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΥΨΙΣΤΟΥ, Son of the Most High God.' Mark v. 7. And by St, Peter, Mat. xvi. 16, Christ is called, the Son of the living God;' which St. Mark, viii. 29, expresseth thus: Thou art the Christ.' And St. Luke, xi. 20, thus: 'Thou art the Christ of God.' And St. John, vi. 69, thus: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Nathaniel saith, John i, 49, Thou art the Son of God.' And others, not disciples, Mat. xiv, 33, say to Christ, Truly thou art a Son of God.' And so said the centurion, and his attendants, Mat. xxvii. 54, Truly this person was a Son of God.' John the Baptist, John i. 34, styles Christ a, or the Son of God.' 'And Christ owns, John x. 36, that he called himself the Son of God.' In this last remarkable passage the following things, of great weight and consequence, are carefully to be observed.

6

1st. The cavil of the Jews, who charged Christ with making himself equal with God: John x. 29, compared with John v. 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 30, 36. Though he told them, John x. 25, That the works' or miracles he wrought were in the name,' that is, by the authority, of the Father, who' indeed did those works,' John v. 20, 30, The Father sheweth the Son,' what himself (the Father) is doing. I (the Son) can do nothing of myself. viii. 25. The Father who dwelleth in me, he doeth the works,' xiv. 10. Therefore your cavil is vain, 'O ye Jews; who say I (Christ) make myself equal with God:' and so is their opinion vain, who maintain a co-equality.

2nd. Christ did not say, he was God, or equal with God, John v. 18, x. 33; but Christ himself tells us, John x. 36, that he only said, he was the Son of God; and he justifies himself upon a supposition, that if he said, that he was God, that would by ho means make good their charge of blasphemy; for, saith he, citing Psalm lxxxii. 6, Judges or magistrates are called gods' in your sacred writings. And besides, seeing I am sanctified, and sent by the Father, upon an extraordinary message to the world, I might upon that account have been called God, without blasphemy; yet I did not say I was God, but only, that I am the Son of God;' whereas your text saith, (of the judges, &c.) Ye are all gods, and all sons of the Most High.'

3rd. By Christ's answer, and his judgment too, it is evident that we may not (as he did not allow it in his, own case) argue from these words 'God,' and 'Son of God'] that Christ is God, in the strictest and highest sense, if he be styled God, or the Son of God."

Yet how common is the language of our divines in their doxologies---" to God the Son," &c. Words that are never to be found in all the New Testament; and never to be reconciled to the reason of the wisest man; for the Supreme God cannot possibly be, or be conceived to be, a Son.

As Christ has taught us, that we cannot argue, that Christ is the Supreme God, from his being called God, or the Son of God; so we justly argue, that since the words, Son or Sons of God, are used of persons eminent in office, rank, and worth, by Christ himself, and others his followers and disciples; these terms alone are not conclusive, and will not determine what is the true nature and essence of Jesus Christ.

6

-that ye

Christ saith, Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the sons of God,' Mat. v. 9; and Christ saith, Bless them who 'curse youmay be,' or become, the sons of your Father;' that is God; ver. 45. Or as St. Luke, vi. 35,

Ye shall