tend to obferve is, that in the above argu ment the conclufion does by no means follow from the premises. Jefus Chrift and his father may be one in many refpects, and as they are only declared to be one indefinitely, and not in any particular determined respect in the premises; therefore, it cannot fairly be concluded from thofe premises, that they are one in any particular determined refpect whatever; and confequently, not in that one particular determined refpect before mentioned; because that would be concluding more from thofe premises than is really contained in them, or is deducible from them, and as fuch it is forced and unnatural. And tho' Christ intended to shew, in this difcourfe, that he and his father are one in a particular determined refpect; yet what that particular determined refpect is, cannot be concluded from the bare words above mentioned, viz. I and my father are one; but must be collected from the subject he had been treating of. Chrift said to the Jews, as at verfes 27, 28. My Sheep bear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. And that it

might appear that Christ's sheep were quite fafe in his hand, he obferved farther, viz.

My father which gave them me is greater than all, and none is able to pluck them out of my father's band. To which he adds, as at verse 30. I and my father are one. Here we plainly see what that particular determined refpect is, in which Chrift said that he and his father are one, viz. in guarding and fecuring Christ's faithful fervants, whom he calls his sheep, from the greatest evil they could be in danger of falling into, that is, from perishing. Chrift confidered himself and his father as being both concerned and engaged for the safety and preservation of his faithful people, who could not poffibly miscarry, having fuch protectors; because his father was fuperior in power, or greater than all those who might be engaged against them. And as Chrift confidered his father and himself as being both concerned for the protection of his people; fo he might very justly and truly fay of his father and himself that they are one; not one effence, not one perfon, not one thing; but one in profecuting one and the fame defign, viz. the protection and preservation of Chrift's Sheep. But then, as I have already obferved, it does not ap

pear,

pear, nor follow from the bare words themfelves, (viz. I and my father are one) when confidered abstractedly from the fubject treated of, in what particular determined respect Chrift and his father are one, that being only discoverable, or to be collected from the fubject he was then treating of. Now, tho' the latter conclufion I have been confidering, viz. that Chrift and his father are one effence, is plainly forced, as not being contained in, nor deducible from the premises; yet it is inferred from those premises, and thereby the former conclufion (viz. that Jefus Chrift is not the fupreme God, in whole, nor in part) is deftroyed, tho' that conclufion is most natural, plain and obvious. I am fenfible, it is pretended that these conclufions do not deftroy one another; because Jefus Chrift, in his human nature, is not the fupreme God, in whole, nor in part, according to one of thefe conclufions; and, in his divine nature, he is the fupreme God, according to the other of those conclufions. Upon which I obferve, that as the distinction of two intelligent natures in the perfon of Chrift, is wholly of human invention; fo, I dare fay, it is such a subtlety as none of the juggle of heathen ora

cles

cles or priests could ever exceed. Besides, this distinction of two intelligent natures in the person of Chrift, will not help the case; because Chrift's human nature could not poffibly be forfaken by his divine nature, whilst those two natures fubfifted together, and by their coalition, and in their united ftate, they conftituted one and the same single individual perfon.

in

THE language Chrift ufed was lofty and figurative, fuitable to the age and country which he lived; and as we are greatly diftant, both as to time and place; fo this ought to be a reafon to us to be very cautious, and to take great heed, what doctrines we build upon it, even with regard to Chrift's perfon, left we be drawn afide from the truth thereby. Chrift fometimes expreffed himself in fuch a manner, as that the very fame kind of reasoning from his words will infer conclufions, with refpect to his perfon, which deftroy one another. Thus, for example, Christ fometimes ftiled himself the fon of man, and at other times he stiled himfelf the Son of God, and faid that God was his father. From the former of these appellations it may naturally be inferred, that Jefus Chrift was brought into being by the opera

of a man,

operation, and through the agency like as all others of the fons of men are. And from the latter of thefe appellations it may in like manner be inferred, that Jefus Christ was not brought into being through the operation, and by the agency of a man, but through the operation, and by the agency of God only; and thus, by the very fame kind of reasoning, those two conclufions, drawn from the words of Christ, deftroy one another. And as two oppofite conclufions feem to follow from the words of Chrift; fo there is fomething, perhaps, which may be offered in favour of each of them. As to the first, viz. that Jefus Chrift was brought into being by the operation, and through the agency of a man, it may be urged, that there is the strongest presumption for it which the nature of the thing will admit; feeing no other man was ever produced in any other way, Adam only excepted, who could not poffibly be produced in this way, as he was the first of the fpecies; and feeing Chrift's being brought into being in the common course of nature was fufficient to answer all * the purposes that were answered by him whilft

* I am fenfible it is pretended, that it was necessary Chrift fhould be brought into being without the agency

of