phets; or by his Son; or by the apoftles. If they fay, By his Son; the Jews will immediately afk, Whether all the feducers in the world do not pretend to Divine authority, for what they fay and do? They all affirm, that the names they bear, the works they perform, and the honours they receive, are by the command of God: yet they are eafily convicted of falsehood, and their wonderful works, if they perform any, are proved to be mere impofture; because they ufurp the characters and glory of God.-If, by the apoftles; they are no lefs embarraffed. For they who reject Chrift, condemn his apoftles; condemn them of blafphemy, for afcribing the glory of God to a crucified man.-If, therefore, fuch a revelation have been made, it was by the prophets. But if fo, Chrift is the true God. For all thofe oracles which reprefent the Meffiah as GOD, fpeak of him as the TRUE GOD. Nothing can be more exprefs than that command which is given to "all the angels to worship him;" nor is any thing more certain, than that it is the true God of whom the words are spoken. And as the prophets have fo exprefsly and repeatedly declared, that there is but one God, the Creator of heaven and earth; it is evident that He of whom they speak must be the true, the eternal God.

That fublime Being whom the prophets foretel, as coming into the world; as fending his meffenger before him; as commanding his fervants to "fay to the cities of Judah, Behold

your God!" is the Creator of heaven and earth. If not, there must be two gods, of whom they fpeak: but Mofes and the prophets unite in afferting, and infift upon it, as a principle effential to that religion which they taught and established, that there is but one God. Hear how

Ifaiah declares the unity and publishes the names of God. "Thus faith the LORD the King of "Ifrael, and his Redeemer, the LORD OF

HOSTS; I am the First, and I am the Laft, and " befides me there is no God." According to these important and fublime expreffions, He only is to be called GOD, whofe names are, JEHOVAH, THE REDEEMER OF ISRAEL, THE LORD OF HOSTS, THE FIRST AND THE LAST.-Again; "I am the LORD, and there is NONE ELSE; "there is NO GOD befides me -That they may "know, from the rifing of the fun and from "the weft, that there is NONE BESIDES ME: I cc am the LORD and there is NONE ELSE, I form "the light, and create darkness; I make peace, "and create evil; I the LORD do all these "things-There is NO GOD ELSE befide me; "6 a juft God and a Saviour, there is NONE BE

SIDE ME-I am God, and there is NONE "ELSE."-See, in what a reiterated manner the prophet afferts the important truth! Hear, with what vehemence of fpirit and force of language, he maintains the fupreme dignity of JEHOVAH'S character, in oppofition to all that are called god, who made not the heavens and the earth, the light and the darkness! Of this the Jews cannot be ignorant. On this principle, they will fay, our fathers condemned your Meffiah. 'He called himself God, and we know there is but one God, the Creator of heaven and earth. Your Meffiah, not being the Former of all things, could not be God; he was, therefore, guilty of blafphemy and worthy of death.'

How, then, fhall we vindicate the conduct of Chrift, if we fuppofe him to be a mere man, and yet allow that he called himself GOD? Shall we fay, that he has nothing of God but the name? But if fo, any other man might be fo called as

well

well as he.-Shall we affert, that he is a metaphorical God; that he is so called in the fenfe in which kings bear the name? But the contrary appears, by his receiving adoration. When we call a man who is exceedingly brave, King of the couragious; we do not mean to ascribe any royalty to him. Befides, when we attribute any thing to a perfon metaphorically, we do not use the name fimply, without any limitation, or explanation. Shall we fay, then, that Chrift is a fubordinate God? But the Scriptures, by excluding a plurality of gods, exclude alfo every subordinate god for they utterly reject every being, as unworthy to be called GOD, who is not the Creator of all things.-When the Supreme Lawgiver fays, "Thou shalt have no other gods be"fore me;" does he mean to exlude all perfons and all things that are not God, or only fome ? If fome only, then the Ifraelites were allowed to have other gods before him; provided they were but of the right fort. But if all, all entirely, then the Jews did right in accufing Chrift of blafphemy, when he proposed himself, or was preached to them, as a fubordinate god.

I may, perhaps, be told, When the Supreme Lawgiver faid, "Thou fhalt have no other "gods before me;" he meant to exclude the

falfe gods of the Heathen.' But whatever gods he intended, they are excluded by a general propofition; which utterly forbids all fuch objects of worship as are not the true God. The Law

giver does not abhor the idols of the Heathen, because they are the idols of the Heathen; but because they are not the TRUE GOD, and yet are worshipped. Suppose it were not wood, or stone, but a man, or an angel; fo foon as you adore him, he becomes a Heathen idol: otherwise, one that worships an angel could not be con

victed of idolatry, by the first command. It is, then, a general prohibition, and abfolutely forbids the worship of any one befides the Supreme Being; confequently, it muft entirely exclude all fubordinate gods.-Nor can the meaning be, to exclude a plurality of fupreme gods. For if fo, of all the Heathen deities, the worship of none but their Jupiter would be condemned, by this command. Befides, why should it condemn a crime that never did, and, according to all probability, never will exift? for none ever yet worshipped two fupreme gods.

Were not the Jews in the right, then, when they complained that Jefus, being a mere man, made himself God? Or, can we blame their conduct, unless we confider Chrift as of the fame effence with Him who created the universe? They affixed the idea of the Supreme Being to the name GOD; having been taught, by the prophets, that there is but one God, and that all other deities fhall perish from the earth. So that if they were under a mistake, in this refpect, they were led into it by their prophets; but if not, they were obliged, on the principles of our opponents, to condemn Jefus for ufurping the names and honours of God.-For it fhould be obferved, that names do not naturally exprefs these ideas rather than thofe; their fignification being fixed, either by God himself, speaking in the Scriptures; or by general confent and cuftom. We are not, therefore, to confider the letters which compofe the name GOD, in English;

ds, in Greek; or mm', in Hebrew; as having any thing facred, or peculiarly fignificant, in them; but we must examine what ideas are affixed to thefe names. Now these ideas are not fuch as any particular perfon may please to fix upon them; but those which have been,

and are annexed

annexed to them, by the unerring Spirit, in the Bible; and by the common confent of mankind. Were a Count of the empire, for inftance, to affume the title of Emperor; he would, no doubt, difplease the princes; and it would be but a poor apology to fay, That by the exalted title, he meant no more, than a fovereign prince in his own country.' He would foon be informed, that the common confent of men, not his particular fancy, fettles the fignification of the term. In like manner, it would be to no purpose for Chriftians to fay; Though Jefus affumed the name GOD; yet he did not apply it to himself in that fenfe in which it is commonly ufed for the queftion is not, What he underftood by it; but, What men ought to understand by it, when it is given to him.

If, therefore, we would know what Jefus meant, by calling himself God; or what his difciples intended, by giving him that name; we muft inquire, what was the common acceptation of the term, in the language of men in general, or in that of the Jews, or of the prophets, or of God himself. If the name agree to Chrift, as a mere man, let our adverfaries inform us which of thefe they follow. It is not agreeable to the manner of speaking among men in general; for it never was their custom to call a mere man by the name GOD. Much lefs is it conformable to the current language of the Jews; nor to that of the prophets; nor to that of God. The Jews used to affix, to that facred name, the idea of the Great Supreme; the idea of him who formed the univerfe: for they knew of no other God. The fame is evident concerning the prophets, who had taught them fo to believe and fo to fpeak; and of the Holy Spirit, who had so taught the prophets.

CHAP