An Humble Inquiry into the Scripture-Account of Jesus Christ
Or, A Short Argument concerning his Deity and Glory, according to the Gospel.

By Thomas Emlyn

A Short Argument, concerning the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

THAT the blessed Jesus has the title of God ascribed sometimes to him in the holy Scriptures, is not denied by Arians or Socinians; but it remains to be examined in what sense that character, as given to him, is intended. Nor is this an unreasonable or needless inquiry, since it is beyond all reasonable denial, that the title of God is given in very different senses in the Scripture.

1. Sometimes it signifies the most High, Perfect and Infinite Being, who is of Himself alone, and owes neither his Being nor Authority, nor any thing to another: and this is what is most commonly intended, when we speak of God in ordinary discourse, and in prayer and praise; we mean it of God in the most eminent sense.

2. At other times it has a lower sense, and is made the character of persons who are invested with subordinate authority and power from that Supreme Being. Thus Angels are styled Gods, Psal. 97:7. Psal. 8:5; Thou hast made him a little lower than the Gods, as it is in the margin: So Magistrates are Gods, Exod. 22:28; Psal. 82:1; John 10:34, 35. And sometimes in the singular number, one person is styled God, as Moses is twice so called, a God to Aaron, and afterwards a God to Pharaoh, Exod. 4:16; 7:1; and thus the Devil is called the God of this World, that is, the Prince and mighty Ruler of it; though by unjust usurpation, and God's permission. Now as he who alone is God, in the former sense, is infinitely above all these; so we find him distinguished from all others who are called God, by this character, namely, a God of Gods, or the Chief of all Gods, with whom none of those Gods may be compared, Deut. 10:17; Josh. 22:22; Ps. 86:8; 135:5. So Philo describes him, to be not only the God of Men, but the God of Gods also. This is the highest and most glorious epithet given him in the Old Testament, when it is designed to make a most magnificent mention of his peerless greatness and glory. Equivalent to this, I take that title to be, which is so much used in the New Testament, namely, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God of our Lord Jesus, the Father of Glory, Eph. 1:3, 17. For since Jesus Christ is the Chief of all subordinate powers, the Prince of the Kings of the Earth, Rev. 1:5, and far above the greatest Angels, Eph.1:21; the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings: he who is styled the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, is therein, in effect, styled the God of Gods, or above all Gods.

Now the question to be resolved is, in which of these two senses Christ is said to be God in the holy Scriptures? The bare character of God determines nothing in this case, because it belongs both to the supreme and to subordinate beings in power and authority: but the question is, whether Jesus Christ be the God of Gods, or above all Gods?

He is indeed the Lord of Lords; but that notes an inferior character, compared with that of God of Gods, as appears by 1 Cor. 8:5, though it be included in the superior; so that he who is above all Gods, is also over all Lords, but not contrariwise. In short, has Jesus Christ any God over him, who has greater authority, and greater ability than himself, or not? This will decide the matter: for if he has a God above him, then he is not the absolutely Supreme God, though in relation to created beings, he may be a God (or ruler) over all.

Nor can we more clearly demonstrate this point, than by showing, first, that Jesus Christ expressly speaks of another God than himself. Secondly, that he acknowledges this God to be above or over himself. Thirdly, that he lacks those super-eminent and infinite perfections, which belong only to the Lord God of Gods. Of these I shall treat in a manner suited to simple capacities; for I judge it very unfit to speak or write of important articles (which the common people must believe, and must so far understand) in such a manner as leaves them wholly unintelligible.

First, Our Lord Jesus Christ expressly speaks of another God distinct from himself: several times we find him saying, My God, of another, Mat. 27:46, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? So John 20:17, surely he intended not to say, Myself, myself, why hast thou forsaken me? This God then was distinct from himself, as he declares in other places: Joh. 7:17, He shall know my doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. So John 8:42, where it's to be noted that he does not distinguish himself from him, as the Father, but as God; and therefore, in all just construction, he cannot be supposed to be that self-same God, from whom he distinguishes, and to whom he contrasts himself. How manifestly are the one God and the one Lord distinguished at 1 Cor. 8:6? And that there may be no just pretence to say with Placӕus, that the God and the Lord, or the Cause of which all things are, and the Cause by or through which they are, are but two things said of the same one God; we may see them more clearly distinguished at Eph. 4:5, 6, where by the interposing other things between the one Lord, and one God, namely, one Faith, one Baptism, it appears evidently that these were not intended as two characters of the same being. I think that none who impartially attends to the Scripture-history, can doubt whether God, and his Christ, are not two distinct beings.

Secondly, Our Lord Jesus acknowledges, not only another than himself to be God; but also that he is above or over himself, which is plainly intimated also by his Apostles. He himself loudly proclaims his subjection to the Father in many instances; in general, he declares his Father to be greater than he, John 14:28; 10:29; he says, he came not in his own, but his Father's name or authority, Joh. 5:43; that he sought not his own, but God's glory, nor made his own will, but God's, his rule; and in such a posture of subjection he came down from Heaven into this Earth, Joh. 6:38: so that it should seem, that nature which did pre-exist, did not possess the supreme will, even before it was incarnate. Again, he acknowledges his dependence upon his God and Father, even for those things which it is pretended belong to him as God, namely, the power of working miracles, of raising the dead, of executing universal judgment; of all which he says, Of my own self I can do nothing, John 5:19, 20, 26, 27, 30. In like manner his Apostles declare his subjection to another, not only as his Father, but as his God; which is emphatically expressed, in calling the most blessed God, the God of our Lord Jesus, after his humiliation was over, Eph. 1:17, and the head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. 11:3. They declare his headship over the universe, and the very foundations of his claim to honour and service, to be owing to the gracious gift of God, ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῶ ['he graciously gave to him'], Phil. 2:9; and yet these are some of the highest glories of Jesus Christ.

Let me only add under this head that great text, so full of irresistible evidence for proving an inferiority in the Son to his Father, or to God, 1 Cor. 15, from verse 24 to 29, where the Apostle says several things to this purpose.

1. That all things are to be put under Christ's feet; all enemies and powers are to be subdued to him: but adds, that it's manifest, God must be excepted out of these things that are under him; and that for this reason, because it's he who did put all under him. And how comes it to pass, that it is so evident a thing, that another must be supposed to be the great Author of this triumph of Christ? Why might it not be done by himself independently, if the Supreme God? and then there need have been no exception of any one being out of the all things under him. But the Apostle knew that Jesus Christ must of necessity triumph by a power derived from God, to whom it was most eminently to be ascribed; and then to one who had such thoughts, it was manifest that there must be one excepted from the all things under him, because he must of necessity be above Christ, who enables him to subdue all things, or makes him a God over all.

2. The Son shall deliver up his Kingdom to God, even the Father, that is, not to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as some pretend, but to the Father only; since it was the Father who gave him all power in Heaven and Earth, Matth. 28:18, and who made him King in Zion: into his hands he will make a surrender of all, in testimony of his having done all in a subordination to him; and having acted and ruled in dependence on him, who shall have a satisfactory account of all given to him in the end. This is a glory peculiar to the Father as Supreme.

3. Then the Son himself shall be subject to him that put all things under him, that is, to God his Father, that God may be all in all; that is, his subjection shall be then manifested by an open solemn acknowledgment of it, when he shall recognize the supremacy of the Father in that public act of surrender: so that, though formerly (in the present state) all judgment and rule was committed to the Son; yet then it shall be otherwise, and God will more immediately appear in the government of the future state, which shall not be so much shared, probably, between him and the Redeemer, as the present administration appears to be. This then will be the issue of all our disputes; God all in all, and the Son himself subject under him. Can any thing be more expressive of an inequality between God and Christ?

But it will be said by some, that by the Son here, is meant the Son of Man, or Christ as Man; while as God, he shall not be subjected to the Father.

Response. As there is no intimation of any such distinction between the pretended two natures of the Son here; so there is enough in the words to show, that they are spoken of him, under his highest capacity and character; insomuch, that Monsieur Claude maintains it to be true of the Son of God, as to his (supposed) divine nature. But though there is no need of supposing such a nature (which I think the text plainly contradicts) yet his reasons will hold so far, as to prove the words do speak of Christ, under the highest character he bears, by the name of Son: for, First, as he says, it's not said the Son of Man, but the Son absolutely, which he thinks in the Scripture-use is accustomed to mean more than the Son of Man; and undoubtedly it imports all that comes under that title: Nay more, it's said, even the Son himself, with great emphasis; as great and glorious as he is with all his grandeur and power, he himself shall be subject. Secondly, his subjection being opposed to his reign, both must be understood of the same subject; be sure the delivering up the Kingdom can only be done by the same to which it was committed, and by which it was managed. Now I shall allow, that only in his human nature, Christ could give up his Kingdom; but then it's because it's as man delegated, and inhabited by God, that he sways and manages this Kingdom; and if this be allowed (as I think it of necessity must) that the man Christ is sufficient, by help from God, to manage his universal spiritual Kingdom, I see no reason there will be to oppose those Unitarians, who think him to be a sufficient Saviour and Prince, though he be not the only Supreme God: nor can any, with reason, attempt to prove him to be such, from his works and office as King of his Church, since it's implied, that as such he must do homage to God the Father, in delivering up his Kingdom to him. And this very expression, to God the Father, makes it plain, that there is no God the Son, in the same sense, or in the same supreme essence with the Father; because if there were, then he ought not to be excluded from his glory of having such open homage paid to him, which is here appropriated to the Father only. And since the Apostle speaks of the same God (whom he explains to be the Father) to the end of this discourse, and says he shall be all in all; how evidently does he show him to be far beyond all that are not God the Father, whatever character else they bear? So then, Jesus Christ, in his highest capacity, being inferior to the Father; how can he be the same God, to which he is subject, or of the same rank and dignity?

Thus it appears that Christ is so God, as to be under a superior God, who has set him over all: and suitable to this, is that account which the Scripture gives us of the Godhead of the blessed Jesus, namely, because he is invested with a Godlike authority and power, from the Supreme God his Father. Thus when he was accused by the captious Jews, for assuming the character of the Son of God (which they pervertly would stretch, as though it implied an equality with God) he explains in what sense only he justified it, namely, as one whom the Father had sanctified, that is, called to a greater office, and honoured with a higher commission than those magistrates, on whom the Scripture so freely bestows the title of Gods, John 10:35, 36. So when he is called God, it's explained in what sense, or of what sort of God. It's to be understood, by saying, that his God (intimating that he had a God over him) had anointed him with oil, etc., Heb. 1:8, 9, that is, had invested him with royal power and dignity (as Kings were installed in their office, by anointing with oil, among the Jews) which is an explication of his Godhead or dominion. And this is said to be above all his fellows, though surely not above the Father and Holy Spirit, (which only are pretended to be his fellows, as God, by them who understand it of the Supreme Godhead) but above all other subordinate beings. This is one, plain Scripture-account of his being called God, for these things are spoken to him, and of him, under the character of God; O God, thy Throne, etc. I think Men should be well assured on what grounds they go, before they assign other reasons of this character, so different from the Scripture-account: let it suffice us, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, Acts 2:36; that he has exalted him to be a Prince and Saviour, Acts 5:31.

However, our adversaries will gain nothing by alleging texts to prove the title of God to be given to Christ, since that may be; and yet it will not prove him to be the Supreme independent God, but only one who is inhabited of, and commissioned and enabled by him who is so. As to that place, which is corruptly rendered in our translation, he thought it no robbery to be equal with God, Phil. 2:6; it is confessed by our adversaries themselves, that it should be read thus, namely, that he did not assume, or arrogate, or snatch at, or covet an equality with God: the words are never known to be used in any other sense, as is shown by Dr. Tillotson in his discourses against the Socinians; also by Dr. Whitby in his exposition on that place; and others. So that this rather denies than asserts Christ's equality to God, though still he was in the form of God, as that notes the outward resemblance of him in his mighty power and works, etc., which is the constant meaning of the word form in the New Testament.

But because some think such perfections are in Scripture ascribed to Christ, as will prove him to be God in the highest sense, I proceed to show;

Thirdly, that our blessed Lord Jesus disclaims those infinite perfections which belong only to the Supreme God of Gods. And it's most certain, that if he want one, or any of these perfections that are essential to the Deity, he is not God in the chief sense: and if we find him disclaiming the one, he cannot challenge the other; for to deny himself to have all divine perfections, or to deny himself to be the infinite God, is the same thing. Let us observe some instances for the proof of this point.

1. One great and peculiar perfection of the Deity, is absolute, underived omnipotence: He who cannot work all miracles, and do whatever he list of himself, without help from another, can never be the Supreme Being, or God; because he appears to be an imperfect defective being, comparatively, since he needs help, and can receive additional strength from another than himself.

Now it is most evident, that our Lord Jesus (whatever power he had) confesses again and again, that he had not infinite Power of himself; Of myself I can do nothing, John 5:30. He had been speaking of great miracles, namely, raising the dead, and executing all judgment; but all along takes care that men should know that his sufficiency for these things was of God the Father. In the beginning of the discourse, he says, The Son can do nothing but what he sees the Father do, John 5:19: so in the middle, The Father has given to the Son to have life in himself, John 5:26, 27: and as if he could never too much inculcate this great truth, he adds towards the conclusion, I can do nothing of myself, ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ; or, from nothing that is myself do I draw this power and authority. Surely this is not the voice of God, but of a man! For the most High can receive from none; he cannot be made more Mighty or Wise, etc., because to absolute perfection can be no addition, Rom. 11:35. And since power in God is an essential perfection, it follows, that if it be derived, then so is the essence or being itself: which is blasphemy against the most High, for it's to Un-god Him; to number him among dependent derivative beings; whilst the Supreme God indeed is only He who is the first Cause, and absolute Original of all.

Nay further, our Lord considers himself here, in contrast to his Father; who, he says, gave him all power: Now if he had such an eternal Divine Word, united more nearly to him than the Father; surely he would have acknowledged his power to be from that Word or Divine Son.

How is it that he ascribes nothing to that, since it's supposed to be equal in power to the Father himself, and more nearly allied to Jesus Christ, as the operating principle in him? My Father in me does the works, John 14:10; by which, it's evident there was no divine agent in and with Him, but the Father; He only has all power of himself, and needs no assistance.

2. Another infinite perfection, that must of necessity be in the Deity, is supreme absolute goodness: All nations have consented to this by the light of nature; that Το ἄγαθον and Optimus Maximus, are the prime characters of the Supreme: as the Orator says, he is One, quo nec melius, nec majus concipi potest; the fullest, and highest of all that are called good: for indeed all other good is derived from Him.

Now the Lord Jesus expressly disclaims this character: Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God, Mat. 19:17; where it's most evident that he distinguishes himself from God, as not the same with Him, and denies of himself what he affirms of God; and as to that divine perfection of supreme infinite goodness, he challenges the man for presuming to say what seemed to attribute it to him, and leads him off to another, who, and who only was more eminently so.

It's astonishing to see what violence is offered to the sacred text, by such as maintain the equality of Jesus Christ to God his Father: What a strange fetch is it, to suppose our Lord's meaning to be this? I know, Man, thou dost not take me for God, as I am; Why then dost thou give me the title belonging to him only? when there is not one word in the context looking this way: for Christ never challenges the poor man with this, that he thought too meanly of him (as they suppose) but quite contrary, that he thought or spoke too highly of him. And truly if the man's error lay in this, that he thought too meanly of Christ, whilst his words otherwise were justly enough applied to him; I cannot think our Lord would have rebuked him in that manner: for instead of keeping him still to the right object, and rectifying his apprehensions about it, which only were wrong, he seems clearly to carry him off to another from himself, as not the right object, without rectifying his thoughts of Christ at all; and to what end could Christ reprove him in such a way, as never tells him what was his fault, but rather tempts him to run into another, and leads him out of the way?

It should seem rather (if any such notion had been then conceived by any) that the man did think him to be God: for if he thought him to be the supreme good, that was to make him God in his eye; and if he did not intend so much, but only meant it of an inferior good, how could Christ rebuke him for it, since that was no fault or error? And truly they who say Christ's receiving worship, when on Earth, proves his deity, can hardly give an account why the man should give, or Christ receive worship from him, as he did, Mark 10:17, if he did not take him for God. However, whatsoever the man thought, he says what Jesus Christ thought, was only proper to be said of God, and too much to be said of himself, as the obvious sense of his words declares.

And let me add, that if our Lord Jesus had on purpose left the matter disguised, not willing to discover who he was then; yet it's strange that the Evangelists, who many years after relate the matter, when it was necessary to have it believed that Christ was Supreme God (as it is pretended) that they, I say, should not unriddle the matter, by inserting some cautious clause, as that this he said to prove him, or because he knew he denied his Godhead, or the like: for sometimes on less occasions they enter such cautions, John 6:6; 21:23. And yet though three of the Evangelists relate this discourse, they all do it the same way, and not one of them says a whit to direct us to this secret way of interpretation, but leaves us to the hazard of a most fatal mistake (even recommended to us by this history;) if Jesus Christ were indeed the supreme good in as high a sense as God his Father, which he so apparently here denies, and by that denies himself to be the most High God.

3. I will only add one perfection more, namely, absolute omniscience, or unlimited knowledge of all things, past, present, and to come. Ps. 147:5. His understanding is infinite. So Isa. 41:23; Acts 15:18. Known to God are all his works from the beginning.

Now, it's plain our Lord Jesus Christ had not this infinite knowledge, particularly not of future things, such as the day of judgment. Mark 13:32; says he, Of that day knows no man, no, not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. Here the Son professes his knowledge to be limited, and inferior to the Father's, that is, the Son of the Father, or Son of God; the Son as above angels in knowledge, the Son in the most eminent sense. Nor how is it possible the Son can be God Infinite, and yet have but a finite understanding? or can he be equal in knowledge to the Father, and yet not know as much as the Father? And be sure if he was not an infinite God, when on earth, he cannot be such afterwards. Thus we have seen Christ himself, with his own mouth disclaiming infinite original power, goodness and knowledge to belong to him, but he attributes them to his Father only, as another, distinct from himself, from whom he derived of each in a dependent limited manner.

What can be said against these plain arguments? I imagine our opposers have but one shift left for the evading them, and that is a distinction which serves them in all cases; for they say, Jesus Christ speaks these things of himself, as man only, while he had another nature as God, which he reserved, and excepted out of the case: so that when he says, I cannot do thus myself, or I am not to be called the chief good, or do not know this, etc., according to them, the meaning is, I have not these perfections in my human nature; but yet I know, and can do all unassisted, and am the chief good in my divine nature, which also is more properly myself. The vanity of which subterfuge I intend now to lay open, by showing how absurdly this distinction of the two natures is pretended, to take off the force of such expressions from Christ's own mouth, which in their natural and undisguised appearance do proclaim his inferiority to God, even the Father. And I shall dwell the more upon this, because it's the most popular and common evasion, and comes in at every turn, when all other relief fails.

It would be no unreasonable demand, to ask, what intimation of any such distinction of two natures they can point us to, in any of these discourses of Christ? Why would men advise or imagine for him, such a strange, and seemingly deceitful way of speaking, from no ground, nor necessity, other than that of upholding their own precarious opinion? But I have several remarks to make upon this common answer.

That which in the first place I have to object against it is, that our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, if himself was the Supreme God in any nature of his own, could not have said such things, as I conceive, in any consistency with truth and sincerity; (which he always maintained strictly) he could not say himself could not do, or did not know the thing, which all this while himself could do, and did know very well, as would be certain if he was the Supreme God, he could and did; for this were to make him say what is most false, and to equivocate in the most deceitful manner: for though we should suppose he consisted of two infinitely distant natures, and so had two capacities of knowledge, etc., yet since he himself includes them both, it follows, that the denying a thing of himself in absolute terms, without any limitation in the words, or other obvious circumstances, does plainly imply a denial of its belonging to any part of his person, or to any nature in it. For though we may affirm a thing of a person, which belongs only to a part of him; as I may properly say a man is wounded or hurt, though it be only in one member, suppose an arm: yet I cannot justly deny a thing of him which belongs only to one part, because it belongs not to another; as I cannot say a man is not wounded, because though one arm be shot or wounded, yet the other is whole.

For instance, I have two organs of sight, two eyes. Now suppose I converse with a man with one eye shut and the other open; if being asked whether I saw him, I should dare to say I saw him not (without any limitation) meaning to myself, that I saw him not with the eye which was shut, though still I saw him well enough with the eye which was open; I fear I should bear the reproach of a liar and deceiver, notwithstanding such a mental reservation as some would attribute to the holy Jesus. For knowledge is the eye of the person; Jesus Christ is supposed to have two of these knowing capacities; the one weak, the other strong and piercing, that discerns all things. Now as such a one, the Disciples return to him, and ask him, Mat. 24:3, when the end of the world and time of his coming shall be? He answers them, by giving them some general account of the matter, but says that the particular day and hour he knew not, nor did any know but the Father, meaning (say my opposers) that he knew it not with his human knowledge, though he knew it well enough with his divine, at the same time that he said, the Son knows it not, absolutely and indefinitely.

And yet if Jesus Christ had a divine knowledge and nature, no doubt his Disciples (who, if anybody, must be supposed to believe it) directed the question to that, rather than to the imperfect human capacity; and yet in answer to it, he says, he knew not the day, which would not be counted sincerity or truth in men, much less was Jesus Christ in danger of it, in his mouth no guile was; let us not impute it to him.

That you may see this is fair reasoning, hear how some of the other side acknowledge it, when out of the heat of this controversy. See Dr. Stillingfleet's sermon on Mat. 10:16, speaking of the equivocations of Popish priests, whose common answer, when examined about what they have known by Confession, is that they know it not, which they think to vindicate from the charge of lying; by saying, that in Confession, the priest knows matters as God, not as man, and therefore he denies to know them, meaning it as man. But says the Doctor, this is absurd; because to say he does not know, is as much as to say he does not in any way know. Now if this be a good answer against the Papists, as no doubt it is; then surely it's so in the present case. Therefore when Christ says, he knows not the Day of Judgment, it's as much as to say he does not in any way know it; and consequently, it's a vain shift to say, it was as man only: we must beware lest we bring the holy Jesus under such reproach for equivocation, as the Romish priests lie under; and make the Jesuits themselves think they have a good title to that name, by imitating herein his example, which in this very instance they allege with so great advantage, according to this interpretation.

2. As a further evidence, that Jesus Christ intended no such distinction of two natures, as is pretended; it's to be observed, that he puts not the distinction, or contrast between the Son of Man and the Eternal Word (as some speak) but between the Son and his Father: Not the Son knows, but only the Father, Mark 13:32, by which it's plain, he had no thought of including any person or nature of his own among the excepted: for whatever was not the Father, he says, was ignorant of that Day. Now it's certain, that in no nature was the Son the Father; and consequently where none but the Father knows, none who are not the Father can be intended: and since our Lord was making an exception in the case, he would not have forgotten to except the Eternal Word too, if there had been such a Divine Principle in himself, equal to the Father and distinct from him; for it's a known rule, that an exception from a general assertion, confirms it as to other instances not excepted.

Will they say, that by the Father is meant all Three Persons here, namely, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? What! can the Father as contrasted with the Son, be put for the Father and the Son? What woeful work will this make with Scripture, to suppose that what are contrasted with each other, do include each other, under the very characters by which they are contrasted? As well may they say that in the baptismal form, by the Father is meant, Father, Son, and Spirit, though he be distinguished from the other two. And I should despair of ever understanding the Scriptures above all books that ever were written, at this rate of interpretation. No doubt, therefore, but the Father as contrasted with the Son, excludes all that is the Son; and then there could be no Son of God that knew of that day which only the Father knew of, and consequently no Son that is God equal to the Father.

3. Moreover, that interpretation must of necessity be unjust, which if admitted, will make all, even the most plain speech, uncertain, and utterly insignificant; as this interpretation of Christ's words would do. For as I ask the patrons of this opinion, in what words Jesus Christ could in brief have denied himself to be God most High, if he had a mind to do it, more plain and full than these? in which he says, he knew not all things as the Father did, nor could do all things, etc. So I would gladly have them show me, what words of that nature he could have used, which the same way of interpretation, as they here use, will not evade and make insignificant. For had he said, or sworn in plain words thus, namely, I tell you I am not the Supreme God, and none but my Father has that glory; they would upon the same reason still have said, This was so be understood of him as man only. So that no words professing himself not to be God, could be a proof of it, if this way of interpretation be allowed. I may therefore safely say this much, that the blessed Jesus has declared himself not to be the Supreme God, or equal to the Father, as plainly as words could speak, or in brief express; and that this declaration made by him already, is not to be evaded any other way, than what will make it impossible his mind should be understood by any words he could have designedly used in the matter. Let any one try if this do not hold true: and sure it must be an absurd way of interpretation, which leaves a man no opportunity or power of speaking his meaning plainly, so as to be understood.

4. Again, this way of interpretation, which the advocates of the opinion I oppose, are so much necessitated to for upholding their cause, does plainly overthrow it again, and may be turned against themselves: for if it be just and true to deny of Christ absolutely what belongs to him in one nature, because there is another nature in which it belongs not to him; then, since to be the chief God belongs to him (according to our adversaries) only in one nature, and not in respect of the other, or human nature, it follows that it may as justly be said Jesus Christ is not God, nor to be worshipped or trusted as such; nay, that he was not before the Virgin Mary, according to them, and the like; and this without adding any limitation or restriction, any more than our Lord does in the place mentioned.

What would they say to one who should speak or preach so, That Jesus is not God, that he cannot do all things, nor is equal to the Father, etc.? Would they not conclude he was a denier of the deity of Christ, else he would never speak so unguarded? Upon the same account, when Jesus Christ himself says, that he cannot of himself do all things, nor knows all things, and makes no exceptions in his words, we may conclude he also denies his being Supreme God; else, if it be a just way of speaking in him, it cannot be unjust in us to imitate him, by denying him indefinitely to be, what he in any one nature is not, that is, that he is not God, without adding more.

Nay, after this way of speaking which they attribute to Christ, a man may be taught to say his Creed backward, and yet make a true profession of his faith, by denying of Jesus Christ in absolute expressions, whatever may be denied of one of his natures. Thus since the Apostles Creed takes notice of nothing to be believed concerning Christ, but what belongs to his manhood, (which is strange, if there were any articles relating to his Supreme Deity, which must be most important) one may venture to deny them all, with this secret unexpressed reserve, namely, meaning it of the divine nature (to which they do not belong.) So that one may say, I believe not that Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost, or born of the Virgin Mary; I believe that he never was crucified under Pontius Pilate, nor was dead or buried; that he never rose nor ascended, nor will return visibly again: for his divine nature (which it's pretended he had) was not capable of these things. And since they say, the personality is divine, here seems more warrant to be bolder in denying indefinitely of the person what does not belong to the divine nature, whose the personality is, than in so denying of the person what only does not belong to the human nature; as this interpretation makes Christ to do.

5. Finally, it weighs something with me, in contrast to this way of interpretation, that the Evangelists never take any occasion (when they had so many) to subjoin any caution against taking Christ's words in their obvious sense, when he says, He did not know the hour, etc., and the like. If, as we said, our Lord had no mind to reveal his divinity, (though I see not still why he should deny it thus) yet surely his Apostles who wrote so many years after, whom it concerned to reveal all important truths most clearly, would not fail to have set the reader right, by removing such obvious objections as these are against the Supreme Deity of Christ; and saying, he spoke this only in respect of his manhood, that he know not all things, etc. But here is not one caution given, as often we find there was about less matters, John 2:21; 11:13. No doubt it was because they would have the thing understood as it fairly lies, not thinking of any such secret reserve in Christ, of a divine nature in his person, to be tacitly excepted, when he had denied such perfections of his person indefinitely.

Thus it remains good, that Jesus Christ disclaims infinite perfections to belong to him as to the Father; and therefore that he is not the same infinite God with him, if we can believe his own words. But before I conclude this argument, I shall endeavour to answer what our opposers offer on the contrary side: they say there is abundant evidence from other scriptures, that Jesus Christ has those perfections in him, which I have showed in the forementioned places he denies of himself. These they lay in balance to the other; and since both sides cannot be proved correct, it must be examined, which ought to yield. Particularly they say, omniscience is ascribed to Jesus Christ, even such as is peculiar to the Supreme God; and since this indeed is that infinite perfection which they seem to allege the most plausible testimonies for its belonging to him, therefore I choose to single out this in particular. I think I have made good the negative already from his own mouth, that he did not know all things: Nor can any thing of equal evidence and force be produced for the affirmative, as will appear upon considerate examination.

The instances usually alleged to prove the infinite omniscience of Jesus Christ, are either, 1. Such as speak of his knowing all things in general; or, 2. Of his knowing men's thoughts and hearts in particular. To both which I reply:

First, it's objected, that the Disciples ascribe to him the knowledge of all things, as John 16:30; 21:16; Thou knowest all things. I answer, That as those expressions are words of admiration from the Disciples not yet inspired; so they are intended only to express a very great and comprehensive knowledge, far from infinite divine omniscience: as appears,

1. By Christ's own words; he knew not what the Father knew, namely, the particular time of the Day of Judgment.

2. In that it was common to ascribe all knowledge to men of extraordinary wisdom, especially when any intended to commend them highly, and were affected with wonder; for admiration and praise naturally inclines to run out into hyperboles. Thus the woman of Tekoah, under a surprising wonder of David's sagacity, cries out: My Lord knows all things on earth, and is as wise as an Angel, 2 Samuel 14:20. And the Apostle in commendation of some Christians says, They know all things, 1 John 2:20, 27. And yet it's plain such encomiums must have their limitations. And indeed the Jews seem to have thought their Prophets knew, in a manner, all things: thus when a woman of ill-fame anointed our Lord's head, the Pharisee says of him, If this man were a prophet, he would know what manner of woman this is, Luke 7:39. And when the woman of Samaria found that he told her of all her secret acts that ever she did, she concludes thus, Sir, I perceive thou art a prophet, John 4:19. It's no wonder then if the Disciples speak thus of him, Thou knowest all things, without esteeming him more than the greatest of Prophets.

3. It's evident they never intended more, by attributing all knowledge to him, from their own words in one of the texts mentioned, John 16:30, where the Disciples tell us, how much they inferred from his great knowledge, (which they describe and extol, by saying, Thou knowest all things) not that he was God, but one sent of God, By this we believe that thou camest forth from God; not that thou thyself art that God. So that by these large expressions, they only intend to attribute to him what a created being is, by divine assistance, capable of: and therefore it's violence to their words, to infer from them, that Jesus Christ is God, when themselves infer no such thing, who best knew their own meaning.

And yet if it were granted that our Lord Jesus knows all things, that is, which actually are; yet if he knows not all futurities too, which he himself denies, he comes short of infinite omniscience. For ought I know, a finite being may have a knowledge commensurate to this poor Earth, which is but a dust of the balance; and yet not know all God's secret purposes, or the seasons which the Father keeps in his own hand, Acts 1:7.

Secondly, it's objected, that the knowledge of the heart is ascribed to Christ, John 2:25; Mat. 9:9; but especially Rev. 2:23. And this they say is what belongs to God only, as Solomon judges, 1 Kings 8:39, and God claims it as his eminent glory, Jer. 17:10, and yet Jesus Christ says, I am he who searches the heart; therefore say they, surely he must be that God, who only knows the hearts of all the children of men. I take this to be the strongest instance that can be produced from the sacred text, for proving any infinite divine perfections to belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, and it shall be seriously considered.

In answer hereto, I shall show two things. 1. In what sense, the searching and knowing the heart is made peculiar to God, and incommunicable to others, by those texts. 2. That notwithstanding it be peculiar to him in some sense, yet these acts may in another sense be justly attributed to another, and performed by him who is not the most High God.

1. As to the former, though Solomon says, Thou, Lord, only knowest the hearts of all men; yet what if I say, it's no wonder that Solomon should not know of any other to whom that excellency was communicated, since this mystery of the unsearchable riches and fulness of Christ, and of God's being manifest in his flesh, and his high exaltation of him, was hidden in the ages past, and only manifested in the times of the Gospel? for it's in these latter times that our Lord Jesus has obtained his great authority and dignity, for which he has received answerable abilities. Yet I add, such expressions in scripture, appropriating some perfections to God, do only import that God has no equal herein, or that there is an eminent sense only in which such perfections are peculiar to God, and incommunicable to all others; though still in a lower sense something of them may be communicated by him to others. And this shall be seen to be no forced supposition, but according to the current strain of plain scripture, in a multitude of instances. Thus it's said, that God only is wise, Rom. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17. So 1 Tim. 6:16, God only has immortality. So thou only art holy, Rev. 15:4. And yet there are wise and holy men, and immortal holy angels and spirits. But the meaning of those appropriate expressions is, that the blessed God is wise, and holy, and immortal, in a more excellent way and higher sense than all others, and in which sense others cannot be so. So when it's said, only God knows the hearts of men, it must be interpreted the same way, namely, that there is none that can know the heart as God does, so universally, so immediately and independently; and yet it's no contradiction, to say that he enables another to do it, in great measure, under him. And as he would argue but very weakly, who should go about to prove an angel to be God, from this, that he is called holy and wise, etc., which are said to belong to God only: even so in the same manner must they argue, who would prove Jesus Christ to be the Supreme God, from his knowing men's hearts, because it's said to belong to God only; unless they can show that Jesus Christ knows in the same excellent independent manner, and degree as his Father, and that he is no more beholden to him for ability and assistance, than he is to his Son Jesus Christ. So I might argue from Isa. 46:9 that only God knows future events, and yet how often have the Prophets foretold them from him?

And it's not hard to suppose, that as holiness and wisdom, so to know the thoughts and hearts of men, have been communicated to Prophets and Apostles. Was there not something of this, if not in the Prophet Elisha's telling the secret counsels of the Syrian King, 2 Kings 6:12, yet at least in the spirit of discerning mentioned at 1 Cor. 12:10 and in the case of Ananias and Sapphira? Acts 5. I grant this was by divine assistance of the spirit of God, and by revelation: neither is our Lord Jesus Christ ashamed to admit that his knowledge is sometimes owing to revelation from God his Father, Rev. 1:1. If any should ask, how Jesus Christ comes to know all that he reveals in those seven epistles to the seven churches, etc., the very first words of that book of the Revelations may be an answer; It was the revelation which God gave to Jesus Christ, etc. No wonder then that he says, he knows their works, their hearts, and their approaching judgments and trials, when his own vast abilities are assisted by God's revelation.

But it will be said, that his searching the heart, imports it to be his own act. Answer: So it may very well be; for whatever a man knows, he knows it by his own act. And why may not the mind search, and yet be under the light of revelation, and the influence of superior assistance? But yet after all, these words of searching the heart, are only an expression that denotes the accuracy of his knowledge, not the manner of attaining to it; for taken properly, as applied to God, it's dishonourable to say, he is put to make a search, since all things are naked and open to his view. And if they must be taken strictly and properly, as applied to Christ, then they belong not to him in the same sense as they do to God, and so can be no argument of his being that God. Which leads me to show,

Secondly, that there's no absurdity in attributing this knowledge of the heart to Jesus Christ, though he be not the most High God. That he knows things with some limitation as to the degree, and in dependence on his Father as to the manner, appears by what has been said already. And therefore the knowledge of the heart attributed to him, must be such as is consistent with his subordination to the Father's greater knowledge.

It's pleaded, that it's not possible for a finite being to have such universal knowledge of the hearts and ways of men, as is ascribed to Jesus Christ, and which as head and ruler of the church and world, he ought to have, and therefore he is infinite God.

Answer: I am pretty sure it can never be demonstrated, that it exceeds a finite capacity to know the concerns of all on this earth, when the enlarged understanding is assisted in the highest manner by divine influence and revelation. The reason is, because the object is finite; and I challenge any man to show me how it can be impossible for a finite capacity to comprehend a finite object, as this world is, and would be, though it were ten thousand times greater than it is? I am satisfied this can never be demonstrated to imply any contradiction in it; and that all such imaginations concerning it, proceed chiefly from too high a conceit of man, and too low apprehension of the infinite God; as if the distance between these two were so small, that there could not be one made of a capacity so much above men, as to be commensurate to them all, but presently he must be the most High God: as though that Supreme Being could not produce one who should be a thousand times beyond all this earth and its inhabitants, and yet it be infinitely below himself. Methinks, if the Sun was but an intelligent creature, and could diffuse his intellectual influences as he does his natural, could but see and understand with his beams and secret influences, it's easy to imagine what a penetrating and comprehensive knowledge he might have; but we may entertain much greater thoughts of the Sun of Righteousness, Jesus Christ.

And I conceive a strong argument to prove Jesus Christ as man, capable of such deep and extensive knowledge, may be drawn from the offices of dignity and power conferred on him by God: for God has given to him to be head over all things, Eph. 1:22. He has given or committed to him all judgment; and that as the Son of Man, John 5:22, 27. In short, his kingly office, by which he rules over all the world, and takes special care of all his members, as it necessarily supposes his knowledge of the whole estate of his church and every member of it, as far as is necessary for the discharge of that trust; so I think it undeniably proves this large knowledge to be exercised by him as man, however he gains it.

For, since this office and power is given, it cannot terminate in the divine nature; for who can give to God any dignity or power, who has all originally in his own being? it must then be given to the man, or human nature only: and if the man Christ Jesus sustains this office, and be invested with this kingly power, even with all power in heaven and earth; then as man we cannot deny him to be suitably qualified for it with all requisite abilities, lest we reproach God, as calling one to an employment, who is not fitted for it, or himself in assuming a trust which he is not able to discharge. Besides, unless his human nature can execute this power, it cannot be said to be given to it; for a power which cannot be exerted, or is impossible to be executed, is not given nor received, any more than a commission, or grant to a stock or a tree, to bear rule, not over the other trees, (as in Jotham's Apologue) but over a nation, or to command an army: it's no gift at all, if this were the case, that the man Christ Jesus be utterly incapable of the office and government lodged in him.

If it be said, That though the office and delegated authority be committed to the human, yet it's only executed by the divine nature in Christ: I answer, It's most unreasonable to suppose this trust committed to the man Christ, who must at last deliver it up, 1 Cor. 15:24; and yet the management of it belong only to another being. How can he be commended for being faithful over the house of God, to him who appointed or constituted him, Heb. 3:2, 6, when it's not expected he should execute his office? I grant indeed that his kingly office is executed by the assistance of God, as he exerts his divine power and wisdom, through the human nature of Christ, and communicates of them in all fulness to him, in whom it dwells: but to say, that the man Christ does not exercise his kingly universal power, but that his divine nature (supposing it) does solely and immediately execute the office given to him as man or mediator (for to God can nothing be given) is in my mind a most gross absurdity: for it's to say, that God officiates for man, in execution of a delegated or subordinate authority; or that he acts under the authority and in the name of a creature, which is not found to be said of the Supreme God. It remains therefore, that as Christ's universal kingdom and headship is by gift from God (of which only the man Christ is the receiver) committed as a trust to him, so he certainly wants no ability to execute that trust in the nature entrusted with it; I say, no ability, whether of power or knowledge, sufficient to render him a careful, vigorous, and every way most effectual head of his body, and ruler of the world: and to deny this, is to rob him of his greatest glory.

Besides, what benefit or gift is it to the man Christ, that the divine nature should execute a power which it always had, and could exercise without any gift to him? What reward, or what addition was this to him?

Another argument may be drawn from that comfortable ground of confidence in a Christian's address to God, which the Scripture lays down, namely, The sympathizing compassion of our Lord Jesus Christ towards his distressed servants, arising from his own sufferings when on earth: Seeing we have not a High Priest, who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted as we are; let us therefore come boldly to the Throne of Grace, Heb. 4:15, 16. Christ's having been tried with sufferings, makes him a more compassionate earnest advocate for us; and this is our comfort.

Now it's certain, this compassion arising from his own experience of trouble, can belong to none but his human nature; the divine nature is compassionate, but not for this reason, because it was tempted, or grieved with misery: no, it was only the man Christ that suffered, and consequently feels a sympathy from hence with his distressed servants. And it's most certain, that if he sympathizes with them in their troubles, he must then know them in that nature which only has a fellow-feeling of them; for none can sympathize with the miseries of others which he knows not of: so that they who deny Christ's human nature to be capable of the knowledge of all our miseries, do in effect deny him to be such a compassionate advocate as the scripture represents him, and rob us of this strong ground of consolation and hope in our approaches to God, which the Apostle would have us to build on.

And this doctrine has been so far from appearing either impossible or absurd to the reason of mankind, that I might produce the consent of a very great number or learned men, even among them who oppose my other opinions. The Lutherans allow the man Christ a sort of universal knowledge, as well as universal presence, which they plead for. The School-men, both Thomists and Scotists, allow him universal knowledge, though they differ in their way of explaining it.

And there was a time in the sixth century, when in the Christian Church some were branded with heresy, under the name of Agnoetӕ, who held Christ was ignorant of some things, which I conceive must have been in relation to his human nature; for those persons acknowledged him to have a divine nature, and it's hard to imagine they could attribute ignorance to that. But (waving that matter, which is disputed) it is enough for my purpose, namely, to prove what sense the Christian Church then had of Christ's extensive knowledge, as man; that they who wrote against those heretics, do expressly deny any ignorance in Christ as man. For this we may produce two famous Patriarchs of the Christian Church at that time, namely, Eulogius of Alexandria, and Gregory of Rome: those heretics produced for their opinion, Christ's words, that he knew not the time of the last judgment as an instance of his ignorance. To this the former person says, That he was not ignorant of it, not as man, and much less as God. The latter says, In Natura quidem humanitatis novisse, sed non ex Natura humanitatis: He knew it with the human nature, but that knowledge did not rise from the humanity; which is what I maintain as to the knowledge I attribute to him, but not extending it so far as to all future events, which they did.

And I find not a few of the modern Reformed Divines, who (when out of this dispute) speak agreeably to this, and are far from thinking it idolatry, to ascribe as much knowledge as I have done, to the man Christ. Thus the Reverend Mr. Baxter, in his notes on Eph. 4:16, plainly intimates, that he conceives an angel might be made capable of ruling the universal church on earth by legislation, judgment, and execution: for having said this task was impossible to any power but divine, he corrects himself by adding, or angelical at least: and surely the man Christ's ability is far superior to angels; besides that he has them ministering to him, and giving him notice of matters if there be any occasion; for he has seven principal spirits, who are the eyes of the Lamb sent forth through all the earth, as the same author interprets Rev. 5:6.

So the author of the little book, called, The Future State, the same who wrote the Good Samaritan, a worthy Divine of the Church of England, says many things very rational concerning the large extent of Christ's human knowledge; that probably, He can as easily inspect the whole globe of this earth, and the heavens that compass it, as we can view a globe of an inch diameter: p. 46, 47. That he intercedes as man; and can he intercede in a case which he knows not? So again, p. 150. The like says Limborch in his Theol. Christ. lib. 5. c. 18.

Let me add only the testimony of Dr. Thomas Goodwin, who was never I suppose censured for an idolater among Dissenters; and yet it's scarcely possible that I should attribute greater knowledge to the man Jesus Christ than he. See his Select Cases, Part III, where he says, The human understanding of Christ takes in all occurrences which concern his Church. And that as he said, All power in heaven and earth is given me of my Father; so might he say, All knowledge in heaven and earth is given me, that his beams pierce into every corner, that he knows the sore of every heart: and concludes with these remarkable words, that as a looking-glass wrought in the form of a globe, represents the images of all that is in the room, so the enlarged human understanding of Christ takes in all things in heaven and earth at once. It seems these men did not take it to be the peculiar perfection of the divine nature to know the hearts, so as that no creature could partake of it by divine assistance and revelation.

Indeed, as to the manner of knowing the heart, we cannot tell how the inhabitants of the other world have access to our minds, or to each other's; but without doubt, Jesus Christ, whose eyes are as a flame of fire, has more proper abilities for penetration, as well as more revelation from God, and more capacity for receiving and treasuring it up, than all others. In short, it's evident, Christ as man is the great Administrator of God's providential Kingdom; as he must judge the whole world, John 5:27; Acts 17:31; which implies vast and universal knowledge. Who then dares say, that the man Christ Jesus has not a knowledge as large as this narrow earth, or as the sand by the sea-shore, without any hyperbole? I think it's beyond all reasonable doubt: and as this doctrine has appeared rational enough, and escaped all censure, as far as I know, when delivered by others than the Unitarians; so I hope it must not be counted heretical in them, for which others never forfeited the glorious title of orthodox.

Thus it appears, that all which is said of Christ's extensive knowledge in Scripture, is far from proving him to be the Supreme Infinite God; it may be accounted for otherwise very fairly: and the like may be also said with respect to other (which some call) divine perfections attributed to him, that they are no more truly infinite, as attributed to him, than this of knowledge, but that there are plain evidences of their being attributed to him in a limited and inferior sense, in comparison of what they are in the most glorious God over all Gods; and therefore men must produce other sort of arguments for the supreme deity of Christ, than from these topics.

Nor do I doubt but I could maintain my cause with equal advantage, upon the head of divine worship, which is another topic from which my opposers would infer the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ: it is easy to show, there is no instance of supreme divine worship given ultimately to him in Scripture, but on the contrary, that all the honour it assigns to him is such as speaks him to be inferior to the Father, and dependent on him; since it is wholly grounded upon what God his Father has graciously bestowed on him. Thus he requires baptism (if that be an act of immediate proper worship) in his name, because all power in heaven and earth was given to him. Thus we must honour the Son as (truly, not as greatly as) we honour the Father; because the Father hath committed, or given, all judgment to him, John 5:22, 23. Thus at the name of Jesus must every knee bow, and every tongue confess him to be Lord; because as a reward of his obedience, the Father hath given him a name above every name: and it's added, that all this homage is ultimately to the glory of the Father, Phil. 2:10, 11. Worship which is thus grounded upon derived and borrowed excellency, is not supremely divine, and cannot be offered to the Infinite, Self-originate, Independent Deity, without a great affront, because it's not the most excellent, Mal. 1:14. To praise an independent God for honour and power granted to him by another, supposes a falsehood, and mingles reproaches with praise.

So that however there may be the same common external acts or words (such as bowing the knee, and saying glory and praise, etc.) used to God and the Mediator; as also in some instances they are given in common to ordinary men; yet the mind of a rational worshipper will make a distinction in his inward intention, as no doubt those devout Jews did, who in the same act bowed their heads and worshipped both God and the King, 1 Chron. 29:20. But I shall not pursue this any further at present.

Moreover, I judge, that to assert Jesus Christ to be the Supreme God, subverts the Gospel-doctrine of his mediation; for if I must have one who is Supreme God and man, for my Mediator with God, then, when I address to Jesus Christ as the Supreme God, where is the God-Man that must be my Mediator with him? To say he mediates with himself, is the same as to say, that I must go to him without a Mediator; and turns the whole business of mediation into a metaphor, contrary to the common sense of things, as well as against the scripture: and I would gladly know what is the notion of going to God without a Mediator, if this be all, that he mediates with himself? Who ever doubted the exercise of his own wisdom or mercy, that these do in a sort plead in him? But surely the Scriptures speak of a Mediator without him, when they set forth Jesus Christ as such; and who is this Mediator, when we go to Jesus Christ as the ultimate object? If it be said his human nature only acts in this mediation, though as united to the divine; I answer, That as this is still to make Christ Mediator with himself, so the human nature is not God-Man; and if the man, or human nature alone, be capable of doing the part of a Mediator, then it's not necessary that Jesus Christ should be more than a man inhabited by, and related to God, in order to occupy that office. Nor may it be said, that the union to the divine nature gives an infinite efficacy to those acts, of which the human only is the principle; for unless by that union, the human nature was turned into an infinite or divine nature, its acts can no more be reckoned properly and intrinsically infinite in this case, than his body or human understanding are infinite, because so united to an infinite nature.

But what fully demonstrates that the human nature of Christ can never be an effectual Mediator (according to them) no, not though it were personally united to the divine, is this, namely, that they deny this human nature so united, to have the knowledge of the secret mental prayers, the inward desires and distresses of all Christians, or to know any one's heart: and how then can he be compassionate intercessor in cases that he knows nothing of? Or how can he have a fellow-feeling of their sufferings, which he does not know that they feel at all? What comfort is there in this account of Christ's mediation? The divine nature is precluded from it, because they direct us to seek to that as the ultimate object through a Mediator; and the human nature, they say, may know nothing of our case, nor knows our hearts, whether we worship sincerely, or repent sincerely, or hypocritically only; and so does not know how to represent or recommend us to God. What a situation now do these men bring us into? There is no Mediator left to interpose with the Supreme God; so that we must deal with him immediately and alone, which they will admit is far from the Gospel-doctrine or method. Thus the Lord Jesus is turned out of his office, on a pretence of giving him higher honour. So that upon the whole, as far as I see, we had even as good be content with the Apostle's fair and plain account of this matter; if its being so very intelligible may not be an unpardonable objection against it, namely, that there is but one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5. Never let us fear, for Paul knew how to describe the Mediator, without leaving out the better half of him, or the principal nature. Our Mediator, according to him, was only called a man; who also is by office a God, or Ruler over all, made so by him who puts all things under him.

And indeed as there are two principal distinguishing doctrines of Christianity, relating to the unity of the Supreme God, and the one Mediator with him; so the Trinitarians have lost them both among their several parties. For as they are divided into two principal parties (besides several sub-divisions) both among Conformists and Dissenters, one part holding three real Persons, or infinite Beings, the other but one; (for they are not yet agreed whether they worship three infinite supreme Beings, or but one) so between them both, these two great doctrines are subverted; the Realists leave room for a Mediator in the Godhead, but they destroy the unity of God, who is one Infinite Being: on the other hand, they who hold true to the divine unity, or one Infinite Being under three modes, or properties, or relations, do, by plain consequence, leave no place for such a Mediator as they require, namely, one who is an infinite God, to be a Mediator with the Infinite God, when there is no other infinite Being but his own, and he cannot be thought to intercede with himself neither. So that to keep the Gospel Faith whole and undefiled, it's necessary that we avoid both these rocks, by believing God and his Christ to be two beings, that so there may be room for one to mediate with the other: and that these two are not two equal or supreme Beings, but one subordinate to the other, that so we may preserve the unity of the Supreme God.

Let us then bethink ourselves seriously, not what the Church in latter days has thought of Jesus Christ, but what his own Apostles, when inspired, have thought of him. Methinks none was more likely, or ever had a fairer occasion to represent his Lord in the height of his glory, than the Apostle Peter in the day of Pentecost; that day of triumph, with the newly and visibly inspired Apostles: hear how magnificently he describes his glorious Lord Jesus before his murderers, Ye Men of Israel hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, Acts 2:22. Again, Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ, Acts 2:36. Now it's observable, the Apostle was aiming at such a description of Jesus Christ, as might strike the hearts of his murderers with the greatest horror of their crime, Acts 2:23; and therefore could never omit the most emphatical branch of his description, namely, his Infinite Deity, if he had really been such. What a terrifying argument had that been to beget conviction in his persecutors beyond all the rest, to tell them, they had shed the blood of the Infinite God himself? It's certainly all flat and low that Peter says in comparison of this, namely, That he was a man approved of God. Did he not understand, or would he betray his cause by such an omission? And yet he only represents Christ as a God by inhabitation and exaltation; when he was far from being daunted with any fear to own Christ fully. Nay, if this Deity of Christ were a fundamental article of the Christian Faith, how comes it to pass, that when poor convinced souls, in anguish for their crimes, seek direction how to be saved from them, Acts 2:37, the Apostle should not acquaint them with this article, but directs them to believe in this Jesus, such as he had described him? Did he direct wounded souls to an insufficient Saviour, without telling them, he was the Infinite God? Yet they are baptized and added to the Church, and numbered among such as shall be saved: how can this be, if the Supreme Godhead of Christ be a fundamental article of the Christian Faith? So Acts 10:38; God was with him. This was all.

To conclude, God and Christ (or one anointed) are two disparates, or different things, as much as Christ's body and bread are, and therefore cannot be predicated one of the other, in a proper sense, or without a figure, as all our writers against the Romish Transubstantiation argue; and it's of equal force in the present case. To be anointed imports to be raised by authority and honour conferred; it's in effect to say, the person is a creature, or inferior being: and therefore to say that properly Christ is most High God, is to say, the Inferior is Supreme, and the Man is God; which cannot be, only by a figure, as the bread is Christ's body, namely, by relation, etc. And truly if the business can be salvaged here by making a personal union between God and Christ, I see not why the Papists may not set up such another union between Christ's body and the bread in the Eucharist, and then they may stoutly defend that it's the body of Christ properly. But indeed nothing is more obvious than the unsteadiness of many Protestant writers, when they write against the Papists and the Unitarians: How do they go backwards and forwards? And when they have triumphantly and fully beaten off the vain assaults and objections of the Papists, they take up their baffled arguments, and urge them the same way (as others did against them) against the Unitarians: and what they have maintained against the former, as good argument, notwithstanding Romish evasions; these arguments they oppose, when the Unitarians turn them against themselves, in the point of the Trinity; and they betake themselves to like shifts and evasions. Thus let the Papists object to them the novelty of the Protestant Religion, and ask them where was their religion and Church before Luther? they think it a weak cavil, and can tell them their religion was in the Bible, and their Church among the primitive Christians, however it lay hid in the time of common apostasy: and yet to the Unitarian they can make the same objection, Where has any Christian Church, for so many ages, held that Christ was not God? Against the Papist they will prove, that the Fathers did not hold the elements to be Christ's real body and blood, because they often call them the images thereof: but let the Unitarians argue that Christ is not the Supreme God, because the Scripture styles him the image of God, and therefore not the God whose image only he is; then the thing itself and its image must be the same thing. Against the Papist they can prove St. Peter was inferior to the Church, and the rest of the Apostles, (though not singly to each) because he was sent up and down by them. This Baronius takes hold of, and tells them, by the same reason they must grant the Arians argument to be good, namely, that the Father is greater than the Son, because the Son is sent by him. But let a Unitarian argue thus, and then, though the Father sends, and the Son be sent by him, yet they shall both be equal, and this shall make no difference. Against the Papists they will boast that they don't hoodwink the people in ignorance; but direct them to enquire and examine, and the more the better, while it's ground of suspicion that the Papists cheat men by their keeping them from the light: but now having to do with the Unitarians, they change course, and give the direction to beware of reading and disputing; they are for an implicit Faith, without examining into deep mysteries; they direct us to believe, not pry into them; though we only desire to examine whether the Scriptures do reveal any such mysteries at all; the rest we will believe, if we could see that, and desire no other liberty in interpreting Scripture, than they take so justly in interpreting Christ's words, This is my body. Upon Protestant principles the Unitarians think they can stand their ground, and defend themselves in these matters, as easily as the Protestants can against the Papists.

As to primitive antiquity, so many inquirers, both among the Romish and Reformed writers, have given their impartial testimony that it runs for Arius's doctrine; and have made such poor defenses for those Fathers, as though they knew not, or were not careful of their fundamental articles of faith, till they came to be banded about in general Councils, that I think it not needful to say more here: only one thing I would suggest; that allowing the primitive writers to speak in different places with great, at least seeming discord (which any ingenuous man must grant) sometimes plainly declaring Jesus Christ inferior to, and the Servant of the Father, before his incarnation; at other times giving him high titles, as of one equal with God: yet it's far more reasonable to suppose the higher expressions should be expounded according to the other, than the contrary; because in discoursing of, and pleading for a beloved admired object, as the Lord Jesus deserves to be, it's very easy and natural to run out into strains of eloquence, and lofty flights of praise, which must be interpreted not with strict rigour, but with great abatements; as is to be observed in some of their high encomiums on the venerable Mystery of the Eucharist, as though with the Papists, they took the elements for Christ's real body, which yet they evidently did deny. But on the contrary, no men are ever accustomed to speak diminutively on such occasions; they could not have a thought to lessen their Master's glory; and therefore if they ever represent him as not the Supreme God, nor equal to him, we have all reason to think they then spoke only the words of truth and soberness, what the exact matter required.

For my own part, as I write this under the serious impressions of those great relations in which the blessed Jesus stands to me, whom I credit as my great Teacher; whom I desire to admire and love as my gracious endeared Benefactor, beyond father and mother, or friends, etc., whom I reverence as my Lord and Ruler, and solemnly expect as my final glorious Judge, who is to come in his own, and in his Father's glory, Luke 9:26; and in the mean time deal with God through him, as my only Mediator and Intercessor: so I earnestly profess, that it's not without grievous and bitter resentments, that I should be employed in writing things, which by so many well-meaning Christians will be misinterpreted, to be derogatory to the honour of this great Redeemer. But I know he loves nothing but truth in his cause, and will never be offended, I hope, with any who stand by his own words, namely, The Father is greater than I, John 14:28. I think it a dangerous thing to say, God is not greater than he, or is not the Head of Christ; for, whom will ye equal to me, saith the Holy One? Isa. 40:25. I am persuaded it's truth I plead for, and that supports me.

However, I wish they who are adversaries to my persuasion, would learn at least the modesty of one of the earliest writers for Christianity since the Apostles that we have, I mean Justin Martyr; disputing with a Jew, and pleading for the honour of Jesus Christ, whom he calls God by the will of the Father, and one who ministered to his will, before his incarnation. This person attempts to show, that Jesus Christ did pre-exist of old, as a God, (in his sense) and was born afterwards of a virgin: but because, as he says, there were some who confessed him to be Christ, and yet denied those points of his pre-existence and his miraculous birth of a virgin, that Father calmly says to his adversary, If I shall not demonstrate these things, that he did pre-exist, etc. and was born of a virgin; yet still the cause is not lost, as to his being the Christ of God; if I do not prove that he did pre-exist, etc., it is just to say that I am mistaken in this thing only, and not to deny that he is the Christ; for whosoever he be, that is every way demonstrated, that he is the Christ. And as for those Christians who denied the above said things, and held him to be only a man, born in the ordinary way, he only says of them, To whom I accord not. He does not damn them who differed from him, nor will say the Christian Religion is subverted, and Christ but an impostor, and a broken reed to trust on, if he be not the very Supreme God, (the ranting dialect of some in our age) no, but still he was sure he is the true Christ, whatever else he might be mistaken in. It's desperate wickedness in men to hazard the reputation of the truth and holiness of the blessed Jesus, upon a difficult and disputable opinion; to dare to say, that if they are mistaken in their opinion (which I truly believe) then Jesus Christ is a liar and deceiver, a mock-Saviour and the like. What is this but to expose him to the scorn of infidels?

So that I see with sorrow, that to this very day, even among professed Christians themselves, Christ crucified is to some a stumbling-block, and to others foolishness. If he be not as good and great as the God who appointed him for a Saviour, though he be allowed to be a man approved of God, by signs and mighty wonders which God did by him, and by whom God made the worlds, as the instrument; though he be granted to be One in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead, John 14:10, so as it never dwelt before in Prophets or any other; though he be one with the Father, by unity of consent and will, as Calvin interprets John 10:30; one in testimony with the Father and Spirit, as Beza and many others understand that in 1 John 5:7, though he be the most lively visible image of God that the world ever saw, so that he who sees him does in great measure see the Father, as in a bright mirror, John 14:10, though he be acknowledged and served, as one far above Angels and Archangels, and over all powers in heaven and earth, a God or Ruler, the great Administrator of God's Kingdom, both on earth and in the invisible Hades, as having the keys, or ministerial power of Death and Hell, Rev. 1:18; yet after all this, if he be not the very Supreme God himself; nay, to complete the absurdity, if he be not the same very God, whose Son and image he is, he shall be no Mediator for them: they do ex hypothesi, or on this supposition, openly disown him for their Saviour and Confidence; they are ashamed to trust in him, and seem rather to deride and reproach him, as insufficient and contemptible, than to believe on him. These things are to me a very grievous offence, who think it a great pity that so excellent a constitution as the Gospel is, so amiable to contemplate, so proper to entertain our thankful admiration for the grace and wisdom it contains, should either be lost in the clouds of an affected obscurity, or exposed to the derision of ungodly scoffers.

It's yet a further grief to think what a fatal stop is hereby put to the progress of the Gospel; whose rejection by Jews, Mahometans and Pagans, is undeniably occasioned by the common doctrine of the Incarnation of God. One may read in Le Compte's History of China, how the Heathens derided the Christian's doctrine of a mortal God; and upon that account looked upon Christianity as fabulous as their own religion. And Doctor Causabon, in his book of Credulity and Incredulity, p. 118, says, He could prove by many instances out of history, that this doctrine has kept more people from embracing the Christian Faith, than any other thing he knew of. Now though I grant, that if it be the certain truth of God, this must be no argument against receiving it; yet surely it should make men very cautious and impartial in their inquiry about it, lest they bring on themselves the woe denounced against them by whom offences (that is, stumbling-blocks in the way of the Gospel) do come.

In the mean time, in the midst of these troubles, it's a great and sweet refreshment to wait and hope for a remove to the Mount Moriah, the Land of Vision above, where all these shades of the melancholy night shall vanish away, and an eternal day of clear light and peace shall shine on them who love our Lord Jesus in sincerity; in whose glorious dignity I rejoice; nay, I desire to boast and glory in this exalted, enthroned Redeemer; for worthy is the Lamb to receive glory, and honour, and blessing, and power. Amen; So be it!

Now to him who loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests to God, even the Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever.

But this I confess unto thee, that after the way, which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my Fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets. Acts 24:14.