as long as you will, and furnish you with such reasons as you like best, as he finds you most inclined, whether to Atheism, infidelity, or herefy. Is there any thing in the world that appears in more different fhapes than what men call human reafon, when it intermeddles in religion? and can the devil have a better game to play than to teach men reafon and philosophy? And indeed, whoever confiders what kind of principles are cried up as folid reafon by our modern Atheists, Deifts, and heretics, fo contrary to the common notions and fentiments of mankind, can hardly think that there is any less in it than a preternatural infatuation, all the perplexed turnings and windings of the old ferpent are fo vifible in them. But I cannot insist on this now. This men get by rejecting a Saviour, who alone can deliver us out of the hands of our fpiritual enemies, that they fall into the fnares of that old deceiver, the great enemy of fouls.

SECT. II.

The eternal Godhead of our Saviour is the only certain foundation of all 1 ..our hopes of falvation and immortal life.

IDO not at prefent defign to engage in that difpute about the eter

nal Godhead of the Son. He is in Scripture called God, the Son of God, the only-begotten Son of God: and the Catholic Church in all ages has understood this of the eternal Son of God, "God of "God, light of light, very God of very God; begotten, not made; "being of one fubftance with the Father, by whom all things were "made;" and expreffed a very warm zeal for this faith; and that with great reafon, fince our hopes of falvation depend on it. And were men but made fenfible of what confequence it is to believe our Lord Jefus Christ to be the eternal Son of God, they would not easily part with this faith, nor wantonly reject it. For,

ift, Let us confider what kind of Chriftianity thofe men profess, who reject the eternal Godhead of the Son; how a creature faviour alters the very reafon and nature of all our hopes.

For, 1. Such men have no Father in their religion as the object of their faith and worship. The Socinians indeed, who deny the eternal Godhead of Christ, as he is the eternal Son of God by nature, yet call God Father, and pray as Christ hath taught us, " Our Father, which art in heaven;" but the question is, under what notion they do, or can, call God Father? Is this a natural or acquired relation? is God our Father, and we his children, by nature, or by adoption? A natural relation between God and us, without our adoption in Christ, can be founded only in his making us, and our being made by him;

and thus Father fignifies no more than a Maker, which makes all mankind equally the fons of God, as being all his creatures; but I do not remember that God is ever called the Father of men in the Old Teftament, merely upon account of creation; however, it is certain this is not the gospel-notion of it. None are the fons of God but Chriftians, and they are fons not by nature, but by regeneration and adoption, and it is in Chrift Jefus that we receive the adoption of fons; we are made the fons of God by faith in Chrift Jefus ; "To as many as re"ceived him, to them he gave power to be called the fons of God, even to as many as believe on his name; who were born not of "blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," John i. 12, 13.; who are fons not by nature, but by adoption and grace. And therefore this title and character of Father, which is the peculiar name of God under the gospel, has an immediate relation to Chrift; he is the Father of our Lord Jefus, and this is the reason why God fent his Son into the world to make us his fons. "When "the fulness of time was come, God fent forth his Son, made of a

..

"

woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the "law, that we might receive the adoption of fons," Galat. iv. 4, 5. Those who deny the divinity of our Saviour, do and muft own all this in fome sense or other, unless they reject the gofpel, which teaches all this in express words; but I would defire you to observe what a vast difference there is between the Socinian account of God's being our Father and what the true Catholic faith gives us of it. For our relation to God as our Father being refolved into our adoption in Chrift, it must bear fome analogy and proportion to that relation which Chrift has to God, as to his Father. So that if Christ be a mere man, he is not the Son of God by nature himself, but a mere nominal and adopted fon; and then we are the adopted fons of God in an adopted fon, which is a very remote and flender relation, and does not answer to those magnificent expreffions in Scripture concerning our adoption and fonthip. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us that we should be called the fons of God!" I John iii. 1. But what a mighty thing is this for God to call Chrift his Son, who is not his Son by nature, and then to call us his fons in Chrift? For, according to this doctrine, it is merely to call us fons, it is a mere arbitrary name; for where there is no natural foundation for the relation, there is no natural reason for the name, but God might have called us any thing else as well as fons, had he fo pleased. But if Chrift be the eternal Son of God, and we be united to Chrift as members of his body, here is a natural foundation for our adoption in Chrift, for this covenant-relation of father and sons, between God the Father of Chrift, and all fincere Christians who are the members of Chrift, the

myftical body of the Son of God; for thus the relation lies, "We are Christ's, and Chrift is God's," as St, Paul speaks, 1 Cor. iii. 23. And therefore fuch as the relation is between God and Christ, and between Chrift and us, fuch is our relation to God; Chrift is the Son of God by nature, of the same substance with his Father, and infeparably one with him; we are not the members of Christ by nature; but this Son of God having taken upon him human nature, all mankind have a relation to human nature, and that is a natural foundation for a covenant-relation between Christ and Christians as the members of his body. Human nature, by its perfonal union to the Son of God, is one with the Son; for the Son of God is, by his incarnation, both God and man in one person; we are naturally related to Chrift, as having the fame nature with him, and therefore are capable of being united to his my. ftical body by faith and regeneration, of becoming" members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," of being one with him, and in him with the Father; as our Saviour prays for all his fincere difciples, "that they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, "that they also may be one in us," John xvii. 21. Now, when we are thus myftically united to Chrift, as to be one with him, to be members of his body, and branches in this fpiritual vine, we must have the fame kind of relation to God that Chrift has; if God be the Father of Chrift by nature and eternal generation, he must be our Father by adoption in Chrift; because we are his, and, according to the nature of our union to him, must be related to God his Father.

66

This gives a fenfible account of the nature and reason of our adoption in Chrift: if God had no fon by nature, there can be no foundation for adoption; for to adopt is to receive one, who is not a fon by nature, into the place, relation, and confequent rights and privileges of a natural fon; but if there be no fon by nature, there is no fuch relation nor privileges to be adopted to. A man, who has no fon of his own, may adopt a fon, because there is such a relation in human nature as that between a father and a fon, and the rights and privileges of it are well known; but if there be no fuch relation in the divine nature, if God have no fon by nature, there can be no foundation for adoption, because there is no fuch natural relation in God, nor any natural rights belonging to it. And therefore St. John tells us, "He that denieth the Son," i. e. who denies that Jefus Chrift is the Son of God," hath not the Father," hath not God for his Father; for there is no eternal Father if there be no eternal Son; and if we deny God to be a Father, he can be none of our Father; "but he that " acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father alfo," 1 John ii. 23. And for this reafon the Apostle ufes thofe expreffions, of" continuing in "the Son and the Father," ver. 24. of" denying the Father and the

"Son," ver.22. of "having the Father and the Son," 2 Epift. ver. 9. For God is no Father, in a true and proper fenfe, if he have not a son of his own nature; and then he cannot be our father by adoption : fo that to deny the Son is to deny the Father, but to have the Son is to have the Father alfo.

Well, fuppofe then that this is the true gospel-notion of God's being the Father, and of our adoption in Christ to be his fons, what greater happiness does this fignify than what thofe profefs to believe who reject the divinity of our Saviour? that is, that if we believe and obey the gospel of Chrift, God will be a Father to us, and deal with us as with fons, which is our adoption in Chrift; that he will forgive our fins, and bestow an immortal inheritance upon us; the only dif ference feems to be, that this has lefs of mystery in it, but fignifies the fame happiness which we expect by our adoption in Christ; that excepting their mistakes in faith, they have the same hopes and expectations, and believe all this as firmly as we do.

Now, though a mistake of this nature is of fatal consequence, (for it is not enough to believe the forgiveness of fins and immortal life unlefs we believe and hope for it in God's way, and accept of it as he has offered it), the Jews believed this, but were rejected by God, because they rejected their Meffias; and if God had made Chrift not only a preacher of righteoufnefs, to publifh his will for the falvation of mankind, but "the author of eternal falvation to all them that obey him," Heb. v. 9.; if this be " his commandment, that we should "believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ," 1 John iii. 23. ; if“ who"foever shall confefs that Jefus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God," 1 John iv. 15.; if " this be the record, that "God hath given unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son; and "that he that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son "of God hath not life," John v. 11, 12. which St. John fo often inculcates on us; it is to little purpose to believe other matters, without believing Jefus to be the Son of God, the eternal Son of the eternal Father; for it is this Son of God alone in whom we receive the adop tion; but, I fay, to fet afide this now, there is a vast difference in the thing itself, between knowing and believing God to be our Father in Christ his eternal Son, in whom he hath adopted us to be his fons and children, and God's owning himself to be our Father, and us his children, without any other reafon or foundation for fuch a relation, but only his promife for Chrift's fake to be kind and merciful to us, as a father is to his children. For, 1. Here is the dignity and glory of the relation loft; for, in this sense, God's being onr Father fignifies no relation to us, unless that of a Maker and fovereign Lord; but it properly denotes the nature and administration of his government, which

་

E

R

.

is kind, affectionate, and merciful, as the government of a father is or ought to be; and our being his fons fignifies no more than that we fhall be, kindly and mercifully used, as fons are by their father, which indeed is great grace and favour to finners, but no more than what innocent creatures might expect from God by the right of creation, and therefore founds no new relation between God and us. But it is a quite different thing to be united to Christ as the members of his body, to be one with Chrift the eternal Son of God, and to be owned by God for his fons as the mystical body of his Son, as the brethren of his eternal Son, and therefore his fons by adoption and grace; this is a character not inferior to that of angels: human nature is advanced above angels by its perfonal union with the Son of God; this incarnate Jefus is the Lord of angels, "the head of all principalities " and powers," who are but the minifters of his kingdom; and there. fore Christians, who have a natural relation to the human nature of Christ, and are spiritually united in his mystical body, who, by their relation to the eternal Son of God, have God for their Father, and are owned by him for his fons, are thereby advanced to the dignity of angels, which human nature in its utmost glory and perfection, without fuch a relation and character, could never pretend to; but the dignity of the relation fets an inferior nature upon the level with them. And therefore the Scripture fpeaks of our adoption and fonfhip. as the height of glory and advancement: "To as many as received "him, to them gave he power to become the fons of God," John i. 12. and," Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed on us, "that we should be called the fons of God!" 1 John iii. 1. What this is now we cannot tell; for though "now we are the fons of God, it "doth not yet appear what we shall be," as the glory of the king's fon is not fo visible out of his father's court and kingdom; but when we come into the kingdom of the Son, and appear under the character of fons, we" (hall then fhine forth like the fun in the kingdom of our "Father;" whatever our external glory fhall then be, which we are asfured will be very great, the glory of our relation and character of the fons of God will give the greatest brightness and luftre to it. This I hope may fatisfy you what a vaft difference there is between being the fons of God and having the title of fons without the relation, which we can never have without our adoption in the eternal Son of God: if Christ be not the eternal Son of God, our being adopted the fons of God in Chrift founds big, but fignifies nothing great; fo that those muft never part with the faith of Father and Son who would not part with the glory and happiness of their adoption.

2. Those who deny Chrift to be the eternal Son of God, and that we are adopted in this eternal Son, lofe the best fecurity of God's fa