refurrection, who is faid to be the first begotten from the dead. So that the terms fon, and begotten son, and only begotten fon, when applied to Chrift, may all be used in a figurative fenfe, for any thing that appears to the contrary. Nor is this at all unlikely to be cafe, when we confider the figurative language of thofe times, and how much the writers of the New Teftament abounded in it; and therefore, I think that nothing can certainly be concluded in the present case.

AND here, perhaps, it may not be improper to give an inftance or cafe, by which what I have now observed may be more fully exemplified. In the epiftle to the Hebrews, the author fpeaks great things of Melchizedek, in order, as it may feem, to aggrandize the personal character of Jefus Christ, by drawing a comparifon betwixt them; the author ufing fuch high figures or loftiness of fpeech as nothing but the common ufage of thofe times would justify. Thus, chap. vii. verse 3. The author speaking of Melchizedek faith, without father, without mother, without defcent, having neither beginning of days,nor end of life. This declaration concerning Melchizedek, when underflood literally, was infinitely beyond the truth, (if I

U 4

may

may so speak) it not being applicable to him, nor any other man, nor, indeed, to any other intelligent being, but the most high God; as there is no other but the fupreme Deity, of whom it can be affirmed with certainty that he was without beginning, and will be without end. For if Melchizedek was a man, as the author referred to hath declared him to be, Hebrews vii. 4. Now confider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the poils; then he must have been defcended from a father and a mother,he must have had a time to be born,and a time to die; fo that the utmost that could be intended by the above lofty declaration concerning Melchizedek could be only this, viz. that his parentage and the duration of his life were not known, that the hiftorian has not informed us who was his father, or his mother, when he was born, or when he died And if the obfcurity of Melchizedek's parentage and life was expreffed in fuch figures, in fuch prodigious loftiness of speech as above, then the like figurative language and loftiness of speech may have been used when Jefus Chrift was spoken of, and be may applied to him. Thus for example, St. John

begins his history or gofpel in the following manner. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The fame was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In this lofty pompous introduction great things are expreffed, and according to the figurative language of those times much more than was intended by the writer; and therefore, what St. John may have intended to fet forth in his introduction may be no more than this, viz. that the Chriftian difpenfation was originally founded by Jefus Chrift, whom St. John characterises by the term word; and that Jefus Chrift was fpecially appointed of God to that work, and was fufficiently qualified for the performance of it. This, I fay, may be all that was intended to be set forth in the declaration aforefaid, there not being any fort of evidence or proof that can be given of the contrary; nor is there any thing in the hiftory of Chrift's life and ministry which fhews, or proves him to be more than this. Befides, St. John made use of such extravagant figures of fpeech and loftiness of language at other times; and therefore,

it

it is not unlikely to have been the cafe here. Thus the evangelift concludes his history, chap. xxi. ver. 25. with a like extravagant kind of language. And there are also many other things which Jefus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I fuppofe that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Here we fee, that the figure St. John used was infinitely beyond the truth, if I may be allowed to speak figuratively also; and therefore, if he ended his hiftory in fo lofty and pompous a manner, then why may he not have begun it in the fame way? furely no reason can be given why he should not. And tho' a man may display his great reading and skill in language, by fhewing learnedly and critically the proper sense of words in the Hebrew, or Greek, or in any other tongue; yet that can answer no purpose here; because when words are used figuratively, then their proper fenfe is dropped, and an improper fenfe is fubftituted in it's ftead. Thus those words [without beginning and without end] when used in a proper fenfe, exprefs the perpetual and endless duration, both paft and to come, of the fubject they are applied to; whereas when they are figuratively

spoken

fpoken of Melchizedek, they can fignify no more than the unknown duration of Melchizedek's life.

SEEING then that this point, viz. whether Jefus Chrift was brought into being by the operation, and through the agency of a man; or whether he was brought into being by the operation, and through the agency of God only, is not fo clearly and fully determined, as to bar all difputes of this kind, but room is left for Chriftians to differ one from another; two questions will arise from hence, viz. who has a right to fettle this point? and how ought Chriftians to behave to each other, under thefe circumftances? As to the first of these questions, who has a right to fettle this point? whether it be his holiness the pretended head of the univerfal church of Chrift, or his Majesty King George, the head of the particular church of England? whether it be any particular chriftian? or any particular fociety of chriftians? Now tho' it may, perhaps, be easily made appear that every individual christian has a right to examine the evidences upon which the propofitions before mentioned are grounded, and from thence to judge and determine for himself with respect

to