confined to a particular spot? His omniscience, in one whose knowledge was limited? Or his incomprehenfibility, in a Person whose nature was as fully understood by the difciples as their own? No fingle perfection could be fully seen, unless finite can contain and difplay that which is infinite.

But to fhew that he afferted unity of effence with the Father, he adds this queftion; Believeft thou not, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Then he declares ; that in giving this teftimony concerning his own effential dignity, he no more acted independently of the authority of God, than in any other part of his doctrine; but only faithfully discharged his office as Mediator. The words that I Speak unto you, I speak not of myself. As a proof that his teftimony was true, he appeals to his works. But the Father that dwelleth in me, he doth the works. By this appeal, he does not mean to declare, that they merely proved the truth of his doctrine in general, but that they particularly established that which he presently afferted, his famenefs of nature with the Father; fhewing that the Father constantly dwelt in him, not only by his Spirit, with refpect to office, but effentially. Thence, the works done by him, in fupport of his claim to Deity, were as much the Father's as his; and were, therefore, to be viewed as the Father's confirmation of Chrift's doctrine on this head.

To guard his difciples against the possibility of mistaking his meaning, he repeats what he had already advanced, demanding their faith. Believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me. He mentions himself in the first place, becaufe the point to be proved was his own effential dignity, of which fome of his difciples were not fufficiently convinced. For they had no doubt of his being the Meffiah, and could never imagine that his works were performed by any power but that of God. Then he illustrates his equality with the Father, by fhewing the efficacy of faith VOL. I.

e

in

in him as its proper object, ir producing works fuch as his, and greater, as to their spiritual effects, in confequence of the effufion of the Spirit, ver. 12. He also proves that his power is the fame with the Father's, in hearing and anfwering prayer: Whatfoever ye ask in my Name, that will I do. Nay, he repeats this declaration, the more to impress them with a fenfe of his effential dignity: If ye shall afe any thing in my Name, I will do it, ver. 13, 14.

Thus, we have a striking proof of the prefumption of Socinians, in their perverfion of this paffage. For it contains the clearest evidence that the Son is of the fame effence with the Father. But our author will admit nothing as a proof of the Trinity, but what would destroy the unity, or overthrow the work of mediation. Unless it appear that the Son can act separately from the Father,, or, at least without regard to his will, he infifts that he is a mere man. In his application of these passages, he fully verifies his own obfervations. By attending only to fome " particular expref"fions, and neglecting, or wholly overlooking others, the ftrangest and most unaccountable opinions may be afcrib"ed to writers. Nay, without confidering the relation that particular expreffions bear to others, and to the tenor of "the whole work, fentiments the very reverse of those "which the writers meant to inculcate may be ascribed to "them *."

66

But Dr P. is not done with this objection. He illuftrates it in the following manner: If Christ was the "Maker of the world, and if, in the creation of it, he ex"erted no power but what properly belonged to himself, and "what was as much his own, as the power of speaking, or "walking belongs to man (though depending ultimately "upon that fupreme Power, in which we all live, and move, "and haye our being) he could not, with any propriety,

* Earl. Op. vol.i. p. 2.

"and

“and without knowing that he must be misunderstood, have “said that of himself he could do nothing, that the words “which he spake were not his own, and that the Father "within him did the works*.”

66

Did this power belong to Chrift alone, the Doctor's inference would be just. But power may properly belong to one, although not exclufively. Thus Chrift as "the Maker "of the world," and as "exerting no power but what properly belonged to himself," might say with propriety "that "of bimfelf he could do nothing." His language might have been liable to mifinterpretation, had he faid nothing more than what our author is pleased to quote. But he knew that he could not be misunderstood by any who were not determined to wrest his words; as he added;-but whatsoever be feeth the Father doing. For this expreffion must have convinced his hearers, that he claimed an operation as extensive as the Father's. The defign and connexion of the other paffage as clearly fhew that he could not be misunderstood by his disciples.

The resemblance used by the learned writer is certainly ill-chofen. For he could not be "the Maker of the world," whose power did not more properly belong to himself, than the power of speaking or walking to man. For the creaturé is dependent on God his Maker for the

whole of his

For he doth

power. But this cannot be faid of the Son. all the works of the Father quos, in the fame manner, John v. 19. I should also think, that a man " depends on that

fupreme Power in which we all live, and move, and have "our being," not merely ultimately, but immediately. Unlefs, it can be proved, that we can speak without breathing, every exertion of this faculty muft proceed from Him who giveth to all, not merely the principle of life, but breath, and all things. If it be allowed that walking is one species Q 2

of

* Ibid. p. 14.

of motion; undoubtedly, in the exercise of this power alfo, we must immediately depend on Him in whom we move.

CHAP. VII.

Of the Proof of our Saviour's Divine Nature, from bis forgiving Sin.

JE

66

ESUS claimed the prerogative of conferring forgivenefs. Even Socinians will not refufe that the proper exercise of this power belongs to God only. But Dr P. when illuftrating our Saviour's language to the paralytic man, Matt. ix. 2. expreffes himself in this manner: "Chrift being appointed the King and Judge of men, had power given him adapted to thefe offices, especially the knowledge of the human heart, and the prerogative of declaring the forgiveness of fin, which always accompanies the regal authority; but being affifted by divine wisdom and "difcernment, as well as by divine power in the exercise of "this high office, it is, in fact, the fame thing as the judg "ment and mercy of God difplayed by the inftrumentality "of Jefus Chrift." His ideas concerning the knowledge of the heart, we have already confidered. He confines our Saviour's prerogative to that of merely declaring the forgiveness of fin. Jefus indeed faid to the man fick of the pally, Thy fins be forgiven thee. This is all that the Doctor quotes. But even this is more than a mere declaration of forgiveness. The fcribes understood it as a claim of power actually to forgive. For they faid, This man blaf phemeth. Chrift fpoke the fame words to the woman who had been a finner and his hearers put the fame conftruction on

:

*Famil. Illuftr. p. 22,

them.

them. Then they that fat at meat with him, began to fay among themselves, Who is this that forgiveth fins alfo? Luke vii. 48, 49. We have no reafon to think, that, in either of thefe inftances, they misunderstood him. For with respect to the former, he expreffed his meaning ftill more clearly, addreffing himself to those who inwardly accufed him of blafphemy; That ye may know that the Son of man bath power on earth to forgive fins (he faith to the fick of the pally) Arife, take up thy bed, &c. He wrought a miracle expressly for the purpose of fhewing them, that he had power, not merely to declare the forgiveness of fins, but actually to forgive them. An infpired apoftle afcribes the fame power to Jefus; nay, fpeaks of this as the common faith: As Chrift forgave you, fo alfo do ye, Col. iii. 13.

Some Socinians have been more liberal to Jefus, than our author feems difpofed to be. They have acknowledged, that he really had power given him to forgive fin, in confequence of his exaltation. But our Lord Jefus, who is the only wife God, foreseeing the impiety of his adverfaries, hath provided an antidote. For he claimed this power, and wrought a miracle to prove that he really poffeffed it, in his ftate of humiliation. That ye may know, he says, that the Son of man hath power ON EARTH to forgive fins, &c. Therefore, if any deny this important truth, they do not err for want of means. They may know it, if they do not wilfully refift the cleareft evidence.

But I am rather at a lofs to know what the Doctor means by faying, that "the prerogative of declaring the forgive"ness of fin always accompanies the regal authority." It cannot be fuppofed that he refers to the royal prerogative of extending mercy to condemned malefactors, of forgiving fin against the ftate. For this is more than he grants to the Saviour. Befides, it has not been univerfally accounted a neceffary accompaniment of regal authority. Does he mean the