6th Text, Heb. 1. 6. When he bringeth in his firft-begotten into the World, he faith, Let all the Augels of God worship him; i. c. Let all the Angels of God worship the firstbegotten; now this firft-begotten is Jehovah, Pfal. 97. 7. for thence the Apoftle cites it.

Anfw. This firft-begotten Son of God has true and eternal Godhead perfonally dwelling in him, and united perfonally to him, and one with him; and therefore the whole complex Perfon is called Jehovah, and is entitled to divine Worship from Angels and Men. God united to the Man Chrift: God manifeft in the Flesh was feen of Angels, 1 Tim. 3. 16. and worshipped by them. This Text does not prove that the firft-begotten is God, any otherwife than by perfonal Union with that Jehovah who is spoken of in the 97th Pfalm. The firft-begotten Son of God is to be worshipped by Angels, because of the indwelling Godhead, the great Jehovah, with whom the Man Chrift is one.

The laft Text, and which affords perhaps the most important Objection against my Sense of the Name, is John 5. 18. compared with John 10. 23, &c. If the Title Son of God did not fignify true Godhead, why did the Jews charge Chrift with Blafphemy, and fay, that he made himself equal with God, and feek to kill him, because he had faid, God was his Father, his own Father, and as they conftruc it, making himself equal with God?

John

John 5. 18. And why do they charge him again with Blafphemy, when he said, I am the Son of God? John. 10. 33. because that thou being a Man, makeft thy felf God. How could this be, if the Name Son of God did not fignify Godhead?

I have given fome Anfwer to that Text in the 5th of John, in fome of the foregoing Pages. But to make it yet clearer, I proceed:

Anfw. I. It is poffible that fome learned Men among them might have a confused Notion from the Prophecies of the Old Teftament, that the Meffiah or the Son of God was to have true and real Godhead in him, which Godhead of the Meffiah is a certain Truth, and hath been fufficiently proved. Now, because he called himself the Son of God, and reprefented himself as the Meffiah, therefore they might infer that he affumed that God head to himself which belonged to the compleat Character of the Meffiah, and upon this account might charge him with Blaf phemy, by way of Confequence.

Yet I have much Reafon to doubt, whether the Scribes and Pharifees did certainly know that the Meffiah was to be the true God; for the whole Nation of the Jews, with their Pricfts and Doctors, were most stupidly and fhamefully ignorant of the true Character and Glory of the Messiah and his Kingdom. Had the Pharifecs themselves any notion that Chrift was to be the true God, they would E 3

never

never have been puzzled and filenc'd at that Question of our Saviour, Matth. 22. 43, 44, &c. If the Meffiah be the Son of David, how could David call him Lord? or, If David calls him Lord, how is he his Son? Their Suppofition of the Godhead of the Meffiah would have eafily answered this Difficulty, if they had had any fuch Opinion.

Befides, we have little Reason to suppose that the Pharifces knew more of the Divinity of the Meffiah than the Difciples themfelves did during the Life of Chrift. Now it appears from many Parts of the History of the Gospel, that they did hardly believe at all that he was the true God; or if they did, yet their Faith of it was very low, wavering and doubtful; and yet doubtless they firmly believed Jefus to be the Meffiah and the Son of God, in a Sense fufficient for Salvation.

"

When Peter in the Name of the reft had made fo glorious a Confeflion, Matt. 16. 16. Thou art Chrift the Son of the living God, he could not mean that Chrift was the great and glorious God; for in . 22. he took up his Master very fhort, and began to rebuke him. Surely he would not have rebuked the Great God his Maker, at least not immediately after fuch a Confeflion of his Godhead.

.

Now, if the Apoftles themselves were in a State of Grace and Salvation, when they can hardly be fuppofed to believe Chrift to be the

true

true and the eternal God, and yet they believed and professed him to be the Son of God, then that Name Son of God doth not neceffarily imply and include his Divinity.

But to return to the Objection.

That which I take to be the plaineft, the clearest, and the moft fcriptural Solution of this Difficulty is this which follows,

Anfw. 2. 'Tis evident that the Design of the wicked Jews in these Places of the History was to bring the higheft Accufation against our Saviour, and to load him with the groffeft Calumnies that all their Wit or Malice could draw from his Words or Actions, Luk. 11. ult. laying wait for him, and feeking to catch fomething out of his Mouth, that they might accuse him.

If ever he spake of his Kingdom (tho' he own'd his Kingdom was not of this World) yet they in their Malice would conftrue it into Sedition and Rebellion, and make him an Enemy to Cafar. And fo when he called God his own Father, and declared himself to bę the Son of God, they in the Fury of their false Zeal conftrue it into Blafphemy; as tho' to own himself to be the Son of God, were to affume Equality with God: whereas Chrift shows them plainly, that thefe Words did not neceffarily imply fuch a Senfe; and this is fufficiently manifeft by the Defence which Chrift made for himself in both thofe Places of the Hiftory. Give me leave to repeat briefly what I faid before. E 4

If we look into John 5. 18. when the Jews accused him that by calling God his Father he made himself equal with God, he doth by no means vindicate that Senfe of his Name Son of God, but rather denies his Equality with God confidered as a SoN, . 19, &c. Verily, verily I fay ---- the Son can do nothing of himself: The Father fheweth the Son all things that he doth, and he will shew him greater Works than thefe. Thence I infer, that he hath not shown him all yet; and *. 30. I can of myself do nothing I feek not mine own Will, but the Will of the Father who hath fent me, &c. All which Expreffions fufficiently evince, that he did not intend to fignify his own Godhead, or Equality with God, when he called himself the Son of God; for in his very Anfwer to their Accufation he reprefents himself inferior to and dependent on God the Father.

Now let us look into the other Text where our Saviour is thus accufed, and defends himself, (viz.) John 10. 30-39. He faith, I and my Father are one. 31. Then the Jews took up Stones again to stone him. 32. Jefus anfwered them, Many good Works have I fhewed you from my Father; for which of thofe Works do ye ftone me? 33. The Jews anfwered him, saying, For a good Work we Stone thee not; but for Blafphemy, and becaufe that thou being a Man, makeft thyfelf God. 64. Jefus answered them, Is it

not