it is in the Epistle, while yet it was known to GOD alone, as it is in the Gofpel, according to their Interpretation. So again; if all things were made by Him, must be meant of all that Jefus did at the Promulgation of the Gospel, this will not reach their Beginning, viz. John Baptift's Preaching; nor permit the Word to have been then with GOD only. If without Him was not any thing made that was made, implies, that the Apostles after the Afcenfion, did nothing but what our Lord commiffion'd and enabled them to do; neither will this bear any relation to the fame Beginning. In like manner we may produce Places of Scripture, which fpeaking, beyond all Difpute, of the true and proper Creation, can be apply'd to no other Perfon but the Son of GOD. And the moft illuftrious, is that of the firft Chapter to the Hebrews, the Defign of which is to declare the fupereminent Excellency of our Saviour Chrift. Which Excellency appears in the highest manner from the Pfalmift's afcribing to Him the Work of the Creation: Unto the Son He faith, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever; and, thou, Lord, in the Beginning haft laid the Foundation of the Earth, and the Heavens are the Work of thy Hands *. That this is * Heb. 1. 3. 10. spoken to the Son of GOD, is evident, not only from the Series of the Chapter, and of the Argument, but likewise from the force of the Conjunction and, which fo plainly connects the latter place of the Pfalmift with the former. Socinus's weak Reply is, that this Conjunction has ne'er a Comma after it, in the ancient Copies; which every one knows to be, for the most part, inaccurate, as to Points and Diftinctions: Yet in the Syriac Translation we find the Term of Connexion and Reference exprefly added: And (again) thou Lord, &c. It is idle to pretend, that the Deftruction only of the Heavens is attributed to the Son, and the Creation of them to the Father; fince there is but one Perfon addrefs'd to, as the Author of both Works.

II. This Being which our Saviour had before He was conceiv'd of the Virgin, was not created, but Divine, As will appear from the Arguments following.

1. Th's Truth is a Corollary from the laft Demonftration of our former Affertion, The Creation of all things by the Son of GOD, which affures us that He was GOD. It is a Rule with St. Paul, He that built all things is GOD †. † Heb. iii.

And

f Hcb. iii. 4.

And St. John as well affures us, that the Word was GOD, as that all things were made by the Word. Socinus has offered a Diftinction, without the leaft fhew of Reason, on the Term (GOD), which in that Propofition, (the Word was with GOD) he understands of a fupreme, independent Deity; in that other Propofition, (the Word was GOD) of one created and dependent. Now befides that the Jews acknowledged the Word to be the eternal GOD. Socinus's Criticifm (borrowed from the Arians) which fupports his Interpretation, will be found precarious and groundless. (It is, that s with an Article fignifies the true and eternal GOD; without an Article, an inferior, fecondary God, made by Him. The Falsehood of which is notorious from almost any place of the New Testament in the Original Language. In this very Chapter St. John, fpeaking of the Supreme GOD no less than four times, immediately after the Text in debate, useth no Article. And indeed where the true GOD is profeffedly opposed to the false, even there the Article is omitted; as Galat. iv. 8,9. No wonder therefore if the fame be omitted, where the Father is diftinguished from the Son; as Rom. i. 1, 4. I Cor. i. 1. 2 Cor. i. 1. Ephef.i. 1. Coloff.i.1. Befides, if this Criticism were good, our Saviour's Argument to the Pharifees would not be fo; Matt. xii. 28. εἰ δὲ ἐγὼ ἐν πνέυματι θεῖ ἐκβάλλω τα δαιμόνια, ἄρα ἔφθασεν ἐφ'

iμaç i Barineα T *. For it doth not follow, that if by the Power of a false, or even of an inferiour, God, He caft out Devils, therefore the Kingdom of the true, or the Supreme God was come upon them.)

2. From that famous Text: Who being (or rather fubfifting) in the form of GOD, thought it not Robbery to be equal with GOD: but emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a Servant, and was made in the likeness of Ment Which Words naturally afford three Propofitions fully demonstrative of our Affertion. First, that Chrift was in the form of a Servant as foon as He was made Man. The literal Translation plainly declares this; emptied himSelf, taking upon him the form of a Servant, being made in the likeness of Men. Where if any doubt how Chrift emptied Himself, he is told, it was by taking the Form of a Servant; if any question how he took the Form of a Servant, the Answer is, by being made in the Likeness of Men. It is a vain Imagination therefore, that our Saviour then first

ap

*Phil. ii. 8.

appeared as a Servant, when he suffered the Indignities of his Trial and Death. The Apoftle vifibly makes this Exinanition, or emptying of himself, antecedent to the great Act of Humiliation. And being found in fashion as a Man, he bumbled himself, and became, (or rather becoming,) obedient unto Death, even unto the Death of the Cross*. This farther appears from the Interpretation made by the Apoftle to the Hebrews. When he cometh into the World he faith, Sacrifice and Offering thou wouldeft not, but a Body haft thou prepared met, of that in the Pfalms, Sacrifices and † Heb.x. s. Offerings thou didst not defire; mine Ears haft thou opened *. * Pfal. xi. 6. For fince the boreing of the Ear under the Law, was a Token of perpetual Servitude, and this is changed by the Apostle into the preparing of a Body, it follows that when this Body was prepared, then did Chrift affume the Form of a Servant. The fecond Propofition contained in the Text, is, that Chrift was in the Form of GOD, before he was in the Form of a Servant, and confequently before he was made Man. This is diftinctly expreffed. He is faid firft, to be in the form of GOD, and being so, to think it no Robbery to be equal with GOD, and notwithstanding that Equality, to take upon him the form of a Servant, Such an Emptying must presuppose a Fulnefs: And if the affumption of the Form of a Servant be coxval with the Emptying, the Form of GOD, or the being in the Form of GOD, must be coæval with the Fulnefs. Thirdly, it is likewise evident from the fame Scripture, that Chrift was as much in the Form of GOD, as in the Form of a Servant; and did as really fubfift in the Divine Nature, as in the Nature of Man. He was fo in the Form of GOD, as to be equal with GOD: But no other Form than the truly and effentially Divine, could infer fuch an Equality. To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, fays the Holy One? *. As there can be but one Infinite, Eternal, and Independent Being, fo can there be no Comparison between this and whatsoever is finite, temporary, and depending. Nor will the Apostle's Argument hold with any great force, unless the Form of GOD does as really and effentially denote the Being and Nature of GOD, as the Form of a Servant opposed to it, and the Likeness of Man, added as an Explication of that Form, do import the Truth and Reality of his humane Nature.

3. From

Ifaiah xl. 25.

Ifai. xli. 4. xlviii. 12. xliv. 6.

3. From the Title of Alpha and Omega, the first and the laft, attributed to Him by the Scripture, abfolutely and univerfally, without any kind of Reftriction or Limitation, without the affigning of any particular in which He is the first and the laft, but according to the full Latitude, and highest Eminence of that Expreffion. But now, by the very fame Title and Character doth GOD defcribe his own Being, and distinguish it most emphatically from all others. I the Lord the first, and with the laft, I am be. I am be, I am the first, I also am the laft. I am the first, and I am the laft, and befide me there is no God t. The Book of the Revelations, which fupplies us with the present Argument, has indeed one place, in which the Style fo frequently applied to Chrift, may be interpreted either of the Father or of the Son. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, faith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. But applied here to either] Perfon, they equally prove our Affertion. If to the Son, then he is certainly the Supreme, Eternal GOD, of the fame Effence with the Father, who was before described by Him which is, and which was, and which is to come +, to whom the fixwinged Beasts continually cry, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come*; as a familiar Explication of that Name, which GOD revealed to + Exod. ii. 14. Mofes +. If to the Father; then did he by this Expreffion fo proclaim His Supreme Deity, that whofoever fhould affume the one, muft profefs the other. And therefore Chrift, having with fo great Solemnity and Fervency, revealed Himfelf under the fame Style, has thereby declared Himself to be the Supreme, Almighty and Eternal GOD.

Rev. i. 8.

† Rev. i. 4.

*Rev.iv. 8.

4. From the famous Vifion of Ifaiah; I Saw the Lord fitting upon a Throne, high and lifted up, and his Train filled the Temple. About it flood the Seraphims, &c. And one cried unto another, and faid, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the * Ifai. vi. 1,2,3. Lord of Hofts, the whole Earth is full of his Glory. But He whofe Glory Ifaiah faw was Chrift: These things faid Efaias, when he faw his Glory and pake of him. And confequently Chrift did then fubfift in the Supreme and Glorious Majefty of the Eternal Godhead, to which alone thefe Titles can belong.

† Joh. xii. 41.

5. The

5. The fifth Argument is built upon this Affertion, That Chrift being in the Nature of Man, is yet in the Scriptures frequently called GOD, and in fuch a manner, as that none else can be understood by the Name, but the One only Eternal GOD. It has been formerly proved, and is univerfally allowed, That there can be but One Divine Effence, and fo but one fupreme GOD. Wherefore were it not faid in Scripture, There are many Gods, we should not prefume thus to communicate the Name. Now if Chrift be none of those many Gods, and yet be God, he is the true eternal GOD. But Chrift is directly oppos'd to those Gods; (there be Gods many and Lords many; but to us there is but one GOD the Father, and one Lord Jefus Chrift, *) and yet is frequently ftiled GOD * 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. therefore the Name is attributed to him in fuch a manner, as that it can be interpreted only of the one Almighty and Eternal GOD.

The Enemies to this great Truth ground their Denial on two Rules, which they have framed to themselves in the Expofition of Scripture. First, they fay, wherefoever the Name of GOD is taken abfolutely, as the Subject of any Propofition, it fignifies the Supreme GOD, excluding all others from the Deity; but is never thus applied to Chrift. Secondly, that when it is ufed with an Article by way of Excellency, it fignifies the fame fupreme Godhead, admitting others to a Communion of the Deity, but not of the Supremacy: But that wherever it is spoken of our Saviour, as the Predicate of a Propofition, it never has an Article thus affixed, and therefore leaves him amongst the Many Gods, who are excluded from the Majefty of the eternal Deity. Now, tho' there can be no Certainty in any fuch Obfervations about the Articles, which the Greeks promifcuously use, or omit; yet to overthrow this whole Hypothefis; we may demonftrate:

1. That the Name of GOD taken fubjectively is in fome places to be understood of Chrift. Thus St. Paul unfolding the Mystery of Godlinefs, has delivered fix Propofitions, the Subject of all and each of which is GOD. Without Controversy, great is the Mystery of Godliness: GOD was manifeft in the Flesh, juftifid in the Spirit, feen of Angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the

E

World,