male and female created they them.] This, furely, would have been the language of the hiftorian, had he fuppofed that God created man either by a fubftitute or with a co-efficient. To this I may add, that all the Jewish writers in the old teftament, when they speak of, or refer to the creation, they ascribe that work wholly to God, exclufive of any fubftitute or co-efficient, at least, I apprehend this to be the cafe; and therefore, it feems to have been a bold attempt of those writers in the new teftament to afcribe the creating and upholding of the world to Jefus Chrift, not only without evidence, but even feemingly against the evidence of the old teftament; I say, this seems to have been a bold attempt, because they had reason to expect it would not gain credit, at least among the Jews. To fay, that the new teftament writers referred to, received the aforefaid doctrine (of Chrift's making and upholding the world) by divine inspiration, is begging the question; because this is a point which is not to be prefumed, but proved; and till that is done, not any thing is to be admitted that is grounded upon it. And tho' the perfonal character of Jefus Chrift is highly exalted by the above doc

it

trines; yet as thofe doctrines do not appear to be well grounded; therefore, they ought not to be admitted, whatever purpose they may be fubfervient to. The above declarations are of an extraordinary nature; and therefore, ought to appear to be well grounded, if. affent to them is demanded; and confequently, it may be well expected that the foundation of them fhould be carefully enquired into; and if, upon fuch enquiry, fhould appear that they have no folid foundation, then, furely, men's affent to them may very juftly and properly be fufpended. To fay, that the above declarations were made by two very great men, viz. St. John and St. Paul, is not altogether fatisfactory, except we knew what these great men grounded thofe declarations upon. To build doctrines of an extraordinary nature upon the bare affertions of great men, does not seem to be quite fafe; because very great men are not only liable to err, but have erred, and therefore, may poffibly err in the cafe referred to. And here, I think, it will be but just to obferve, how ready and quickfighted Chriftians are, in fpying the mote that is in their brother's eye, notwithstanding the beam that is in their own. Chrif

tians have been very ready to observe and expofe the weakness and fuperftition of the Pagans in deifying, that is, making DemiGods of their heroes and benefactors; whilft they themselves, or fome of them at least, in this very particular, have gone beyond thofe Pagans, in making their great benefactor, viz. Jefus Chrift, not a Demi-God, but the very fupreme God himself; than which, furely, nothing was ever more extravagant. And the 'intemperate zeal of Chriftians hath not only led them to exalt the perfonal character of their mafter above what was meet, (as if he who exalted Christ's character highest was the best and trueft Chriftian, whilst those who thought more foberly and cooly of this matter fell under the infamous name of Hereticks) but it hath alfo led them to unchriftianize themfelves, by difpofing them to put off that humble, peaceable, benevolent temper and behaviour towards all men, which, according to the hiftories, eminently appeared in their common mafter, and which is effential to a true difciple of Jefus Chrift, (for if any man hath not the fpirit of Christ he is none of his, Romans viii. 9.) and by introducing in them fuch a temper and behaviour

as was much more fuitable to the ravenous

beafts of the field, than to intelligent beings, who come under the denomination either of men, or Chriftians. And,

As Chriftians have built extravagant doctrines on the writings of the new teftament, and particularly on the words of Christ, with regard to his perfonal character; so their reafonings and argumentation, in order to fupport thofe doctrines, have been as extravagant: That is, it has not been an unusual thing for Chriftians to draw forced and unnatural conclufions from the words of Chrift, and thereby deftroy conclufions which are most natural, plain and obvious, that Chrift's perfonal character might be highly exalted. Thus, Matt. xxvii. 46. Chrift is faid to make the following complaint; My God, my God, why baft thou forfaken me. The conclufion which naturally and obviously follows from these words or premises, with respect to the perfon of Jefus Chriít, is this, viz. that he is not the fupreme God, in whole, nor in part ; this negative conclufion being

evidently con

tained in those promises. For if Jefus Chrift was forfaken of God, then he is not that God, in whole, nor in part, that he was

forfa

forfaken by; it being an impossibility in nature for the fupreme God, or, indeed, any other intelligent being, to forfake himself, or be forfaken by himself. Again, John x. 30. Christ said, I and my father are one. From which words or premises this forced conclufion is drawn, viz. that Jesus Christ and his father are one effence; and confequently, that Jefus Chrift is the Supreme God, as he is one effence with his father who is the fupreme God. If by one effence, be meant one species or kind of effence; then the above confequence will not follow; because as God may produce a being after his own image or likeness, which was the case of man; fo he may also produce a being of the fame fpecies or kind of effence with himfelf, for any thing we know; and if he should, that being would be derived from, and would be dependent upon him, but could not poffibly be the one fupreme God with him. And if by one effence, be meant one numerical identical effence; then the above consequence is abfurd; because the fame numerical identical effence cannot poffibly be both father and fon to itself, it cannot beget itself, nor be begotten by, or of itself. But this is by the way. What I inT 4 tend