man hath given life to himself, so no man hath the disposal of it in his own power; for the issues of life and death belong to God only. What then could have given the man Christ Jesus a property in his own life? It must, no doubt, have been that infinitely higher life, which, although held by ineffable communication from the Father, of whom are all things,' yet belonged to the Son of God, by whom are all things, by and for whom all things were created.' On the whole, if there is but one God, and Christ is God, he can in no sense be of a nature inferior to that of his Father; for there cannot be a superior and an inferior God; and, therefore, the supremacy of the Father cannot possibly be founded on any difference of nature or essence, but only on that relation which Christ bears to him as his Son, of one and the same nature; or as a distinct person, voluntarily undertaking and holding an office under the Father. The truth is, the subjection or subordination of the Son is seldom or never mentioned in Scripture but with an eye to his humiliation; that is, to the assumption of human nature, and its consequences. Thus it is only that he is called a servant. Before it, he was in no sense a servant. No, he was in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equal with God,' at that time when he vouchsafed to humble or empty himself, in order that he might become a servant, or man. Now we know, that the highest angels of light, and every creature, although of the most exalted dignity, are all the servants of God. Christ, therefore, could not have been a creature before he became man; for it is plain he only then became a servant. As we may look on Christ as the greatest of men, though subject to Joseph and Mary, so we may regard him as the greatest of beings, though subject to his Father. His subjection no more derogates from the dignity of his nature in the one case, than it does in the other.

It is still farther urged by the Arians, that Christ cannot properly be called God, since he himself says, John v. 30, 'I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge; aud my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.' Were this passage to be taken strictly, Christ must be less than the weakest of men; for every man can do something. Or, were the entire dignity of his person to be estimated by these words

alone, though understood with the utmost latitude, we could not possibly think of him as more than a mere man. Yet the Arians themselves allow him a much higher character, not only on account of his office, but of his nature also. They say he was before all worlds, and call him God. They must, therefore, not grant, but insist as well as we, that he spoke these words of his human nature. And, indeed, no farther back than the 27th verse, he had said, that his Father gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man;' which evidently shews, that he speaks, throughout the whole passage, of himself as the Son of man only. The same remark is to be made on what he delivers to his hearers, at ver. 26; As the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son also to have life in himself;' a text urged likewise by the opposers of Christ's divinity, although it is as clear as the light, that he there speaks of himself as a man, because in the same sentence, he calls himself the Son of man.' If, however, the objectors will needs interpret this text of his superior nature, they ought to consider what it is to have life in himself, as the Father hath life in himself.' The Father, we know, hath it from all eternity, and in the highest independent sense. Christ, therefore, must have it in the same sense, though by communication, though by eternal communication, or he cannot have it, as the Father hath it, in himself. This cannot be said with truth, and in strictness, of any creature. But where is the sense, or rather where is the honesty, of Dr. Clarke, and the other Arians, in pressing us so often with these and the like texts, at the expense of their own hypothesis? It is only to serve the present turn. The dispute between them and us is not concerning the human nature of Christ; and, therefore, can never be affected either way by citations that relate purely to his humanity. No; our inquiry turns solely on that other and higher nature of Christ, whether it is truly a divine, or only an angelic nature. Now, is it not altogether disingenuous to make a sophistical parade of texts that relate not in the least to this higher nature, but only to that which Christ assumed in the womb of the Virgin? Were the Arians held to these their citations, must they not abandon their whole system? If such passages can characterise the whole person of Christ, he can be no more than a mere man; if

they intimate only his inferior nature, why are they urged in a dispute about the other, by men who own to us, and insist to the Socinians, that he actually hath another and a higher nature?

It is with the same shameless disingenuity that they never fail to object those places where our Saviour says, 'I proceeded forth and came from God;' John viii. 42; and that 'he was come from God and went to God;' chap. xiii. 3. Strictly speaking, no one can come from, or go to, God, because he is equally present every where; but, as God manifests his glory more especially in heaven, from thence our Saviour is said to come; so thither he is said to go, in the same sense, with respect to his human nature, as any other man may be said to change his place; with respect to his divine, in a sense utterly incomprehensible and unintelligible to us; but still in a sense as intelligible as that wherein he says, speaking of his Father, as well as himself, 'If any man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him;' John xiv. 23. Here change of place, or presence on condition, which in terms implies a possibility of absence, is ascribed to the Father, as well as the Son. He whom all acknowledge to be God, is so frequently said in the Old Testament to move to or from a place, that it is needless to particularize the passages. In whatever sense this is said of God, it may in the same be said of Christ, without derogating from his omnipresence, who was in heaven at the same time that he was on earth, if we believe John the Baptist in these words, spoken while Christ was here below, 'The only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him;' John i. 18. Or if we believe Christ himself, who saith, No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven;' chap. iii. 13. But whereas, in the passages objected, Christ is said to come from God, and go to God, our adversaries insist he is therein distinguished from God, and consequently cannot be God. And we, on the other hand, insist, that so far the expression relates purely to the human nature, that is, the soul and body, of our Saviour, which, like those of other men, proceeded from the hands of their Maker, and were, when these words were

spoken, about to return to him again. Thus it is necessary we should understand them, whether we consider the approaching departure of Christ as man, which gave occasion to them, or the many other places of Scripture wherein he is, in the strictest sense of the word, called God.

The last objection I shall here take notice of, is, that which our opponents draw from the fifteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, where we are told, Christ shall deliver up the kingdom to God,' ver. 24; ' after having put every thing else under his feet,' ver. 25-27; and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all;' ver. 28. Here, say they, the name and title of God is given to the Father only; and the subjection of Christ, from the consummation of all things, to all eternity, is predicted; which, in their judgment, could not be, were Christ God, equal with the Father.

We readily acknowledge, that the name and title of God is, in this place, given to the Father only; and that the subjection of Christ, as urged in the argument of our opponents, is foretold: but we think it cannot be concluded from hence, that the Son, in respect to his superior nature, is not God, equal with the Father, since he hath a lower nature, whereof all this, we insist, is said. At ver. 24, it is said, 'Christ shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.' Here the Father' is added only to denote a distinction between him and the Son, which had been needless, were not the Son God also; for, had the apostle said simply 'to God,' and not by way of distinction, subjoined the Father,' it might have been apprehended, that none was God but he to whom the kingdom is to be delivered up. But, to decide the present question, it will be necessary to consider what this kingdom is which the Son shall deliver up, and how it came to be peculiarly his.

The kingdom of the Son is an absolute dominion over every thing in heaven, in earth, and under the earth;' Phil. ii. 10. This kingdom he acquired by donation from the Father, on account of his death;' ver. 8, 9. The right of judging this kingdom accrues to him as the Son of man;' John v. 27. It was by the sacrifice of his blood that he became the Mediator between God and the subjects of this

kingdom; Heb. ix. 14, 15. It was through his death that he destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil,' Heb. ii. 14; and thereby finished his conquests, and reduced the kingdom to perfect obedience;' 1 Cor. xv. 26. Hence it appears, that, in the passage objected, Christ is spoken of purely as that man whom God had highly exalted, and to whom he had given a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow,' &c. Phil. ii. 9, 10. It is true, indeed, that, had not Christ been God as well as man, he could neither have acquired, nor exercised, this boundless empire. However, we see it is as man that he dies, that he conquers, that he reigns; and as man, therefore, that he resigns his power, when all the ends of his commission are answered, that God,' whether as the Father, as the Son, or as the Holy Ghost,' may be all in all,' without the interposition of a created delegate, just on the same footing as before the worlds were made. Be the superior nature of Christ what it will, it hath nothing to do with our debate on the passage before us; for, as man only, Christ acquires a kingdom, resigns it, and it is subject to God, from the final judgment, the last act to be done by him, in consequence of his commission, to all eternity.

But what would our Arian adversaries infer from this passage? Is it not, that the whole person of Christ shall be subject to the Father, from the last day, to all eternity? And shall not we also have as good a right to infer, that now, and till that period, his whole person possesses an absolute dominion over all things, and is not subject? What does the change or resignation imply but this? And surely this is a great deal too much for either the Arian or Socinian system of subordination; too much indeed for reason itself to digest, because reason will not suffer us to suppose, that a mere creature should be intrusted with an unlimited, unsubordinate, uncontrollable, dominion over all things, during any space of time. But, in the midst of this, it should be considered, that God was all in all' before Christ was a man; that, in some sense or other, he is so still; that Christ, by whom, and for whom, all things were made,' was possessed of an unlimited empire over all things antecedently to his incarnation; and that David, quoted by St. Paul, says to him, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;' Heb. i. 8.