give us a favourable idea of the benevolence of his disposition, nor even of his moral rectitude and virtue.

The account we have, Mat. ix. Mark v. and Luke viii. of his healing the woman with the bloody issue, exhibits something very dark and perplexing; as it manifestly appears upon the face of the text, that Jesus considered himself, and the evangelist also considered him as the source of the miracle, exclusive of all superior influence. Mark says, that Jesus knowing in himself that virtue was gone out of him, turned about,' &c. whereas he ought to have said, that virtue was gone out from God, by him as the instrument, according to you. But what must astonish every Rational Christian, is, Jesus himself confirms the evangelist's testimony, Luke viii. 45. Jesus said somebody hath touched me: for VIRTUE IS GONE OUT OF ME.' Now if he wrought no miracles, but by the permission of the Father, as Mohammed says, or performed all his works by the power of the Father, as you would have us to believe, was he not shamefully wanting in zeal for God, to talk in this strain, virtue is gone out of ME?' What virtue, I pray you, should go out of one, who is in all respects but a man like ourselves? If there is but One God, in One Person, the Father only, and if Jesus Christ was a teacher sent from him: was it not his business, to lead the people to the Father only, instead of leading them to himself? But instead of that, he works miracles, and does not so much as mention the name of the Father in them; yea even tells the people, that the virtue by which those miracles were effected, came entirely out of himself, as its source. Indeed, Sir, it will be very difficult to clear the character of Jesus from the charge, of robbing the Deity, on supposition, that he is no more than a man like ourselves.

To keep clear of every dead flie which might spoil our ointment, I would observe that, I am aware, you will alledge in Christ's defence, that he made a general profession upon more occasions than one, of subordinacy to the Father, and of his shewing good works from the Father, as John x. 32. But then it will be answered, why did he not upon all occasions, on which he exerted a miraculous power, bear this testimony, that the people might not be misled into a wrong notion of his person and authority? The leper, the centurion, the woman with the bloody issue, were sent away without any such information, or any caution against believing in him as the source of healing Consequently this very profession serves only to embarrass his character the more---leads us to consider his conduct in the following light. He knew all along, that he wrought no works but by the power of the Father; and on particular occasions openly confesses it: yet the far greater part of his works were performed without any visible reference had to the Father: and the subjects upon whom he exercised his miraculous power, were,

for the most part left to conclude, that they were cured merely by the personal authority of the immediate operator; whereas a few words fitly spoken by him would have convinced them of the contrary. So that this, instead of clearing him from the charge of robbing the Deity, only serves to confirm it.

But every cloud disperseth, every difficulty vanisheth, when we consider him as, according to the scriptures, acting in a twofold capacity becoming his name Immanuel. As Man, and Mediator, acting in subordinacy to, and by the authority of the Father and as a divine person dwelling in the flesh, as one with the Father, acting in his own name, and by his own personal authority. And I think, without considering him in this light, it is morally impossible to clear him from the charge of duplicity, and of prophanely robbing the Deity.

I am, Reverend Sir,

Yours, &c.

Reverend Sir,

LETTER XVII.

Ir is now time to come to Christ's application of Old Testament prophecies to himself, and to treat of his usual manner, of confounding himself with Deity, in which, it shall be left to you to determine, whether such conduct can be justified by the laws of piety, or even by those of sober intelligence, on supposition always, that your plan of doctrine be genuine gospel. You seem to be apprehensive of some difficulty, arising from this consideration, from the great pains you have taken in your Familiar Illustration, to explain away some of those passages of Scripture, which bear hardest upon your irrational scheme. This, Sir, demonstrates the obscurity of the Scriptures, and may in some measure assist me, in my determination, whether the religion of Jesus, according to your plan of doctrine, or the Mohammedan religion shall be adopted.

Searching the hearts of the children of men is claimed by the most high as his own prerogative, Jer. xvii. 10. I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins.' This has been ascribed to him by his church in all ages, as might be shewn in numberless instances. And would we not from hence be led to suppose, that none besides the most high God, could pretend to search the heart, and try the reins of the sons of men. Indeed the scriptures of the Old Testament give all possible encouragement

to this notion; for Solomon, in his prayer at the consecration of the temple, 2 Chron. vi. 30. says, thou only knowest the hearts of he children of men.' If I am not mistaken, that which is peculiar to God only, as searching the heart is here said to be, must in its own nature be incommunicable: for were it communicable to a creature, it could not be peculiar to God himself. Were it possible that God should communicate the power and prerogative of searching the heart, and trying the reins of the sons of men, to a mere creature, even to a man like ourselves, as you alledge, it could with no propriety be said of him, that he only searcheth the heart; seeing, another besides him, actually knoweth the heart, and searcheth the reins of the children of

men.

A teacher sent from God, must necessarily be considered, as one that knows the Divine mind, especially in every thing relative to his own personal mission; one that will, on all occasions, preserve the most awful distance between himself and his Maker; for this seems to be essential to true piety, which, you know, cannot be separated from the character of a good man. We cannot therefore suppose, that Jesus was ignorant of Solomon's confession of the most high God, as the only searcher of hearts. His professed design in coming into the world was to fulfil the law and the prophets, not to destroy their testimony. We cannot therefore but wonder, he should suffer his evangelists to ascribe that perfection to himself, in flat contradiction to the testimony borne by Solomon. I say contradiction, on supposition that your doctrine were true. They tell us, that Jesus saw the thoughts of the Jewish cavillers: that he needed not that any should testify of man, because he knew what was in man. Surely this was to all intents and purposes confounding him with that God, who only knoweth the hearts of the children of men.

6

But what must we think, when we find Jesus Christ applying Solomon's confession to himself in person? He gives us all possible reason to believe, that he is essentially_that very being whom Solomon addressed on that occasion. Devout Solomon says, thou only knowest the hearts of the children of men.' Jesus replies, Rev. ii. 23, I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts.' He even seems to wish this declaration to be published abroad by his heralds as the true doctrine of the gospel; for he says, and all the churches shall know, that I am he that 'searcheth the reins and hearts.' If therefore but a mere man like ourselves, he was guilty of the highest presumption, and took the most likely way possible to lead us into idolatry. For so long as we believe him to be the searcher of hearts, and trier of the reins of men, we are under an unavoidable necessity of worshipping him, with the same divine honours which we ascribe to the Father. And should we be damned for so doing, must not our ruin be laid to his charge, who, by ascribing divine

honours to himself, instead of maintaining that lowly distance becoming a creature, has been the occasion of it?

I do not wonder, that people of your persuasion are so much offended with the revelation of John the Divine, as to wish it cut off from the sacred canon, it is so extremely adverse to your scheme of irrational religion; which, if the scriptures be true, must be the absurdest system of enthusiasm to be met with amongst modern Fanatics. One caution, however, I would beg leave to give those Enthusiasts, who are so zealous to get rid of this part of holy scripture: and that is, well to consider a certain passage in it, Rev. xxii. 18, 19, For I testify unto every man that heareth the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add ' unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are 'written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and the things which are written in this book.' If there is but a bare possibility of the Revelation being divinely given, and if its sacred contents are guarded in such a manner, that even to add to, or diminish from them shall be punished with the severest penalty, will it not be very dangerous to attempt expunging of the whole?

After all, if it should appear at his second coming, that our Jesus is none other than the Ancient of Days, God over all blessed for evermore incarnated in the flesh, what a plight must they be in, who are now mad with enthusiastic zeal, against the doctrine of his proper Deity, as One with the Father and the Holy Ghost? These things certainly merit our most serious consideration, as our God is not to be trifled with.

Was this the only instance of his applying to himself those parts of Old Testament prophecy, which undoubtedly have the supreme God for their object, it might be passed over as a peculiar instance, in which it is supposed, the sacred penman was mistaken. But we find it to be his constant practice, as well as that of his apostles, and must therefore conclude, that either your doctrine is blasphemous enthusiasm, or he himself an arrant impostor: as there does not to me appear to be any medium.

That in Isaiah lxi. is evidently referable only to the supreme God, from what is said in verse 8, For I the Lord love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering, and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with 'them.' If the speaker can at all be known by his stile, surely Jehovah is the speaker here; yet the same august person condescends to an humbler, even a subordinate capacity, and in the beginning of the chapter speaks of himself in the station of a servant, and sets forth the divinity of his mission as such. The 'spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because he hath anointed

GO9

me,' &c. Here then is a servant, who calls himself Jehovah, and speaks, as if he were the supreme GOD, and Lawgiver to his people. Yet JESUS, who, you say, is but a man like ourselves, in Luke iv. applies the whole of this to himself: for, after quoting this passage from Isaiah, he said, This day is the scripture • fulfilled in your eyes.' By which he must mean to persuade his audience, that he himself was the identical person there speaking in the spirit of prophecy.

6

The person whom the prophet represented, assumes the name and character of the Lord, or Jehovah; by which name GOD only is known in Jacob: but Jesus in effect tells the people that he was that person, this day is this scripture fulfilled in your eyes.' I hate robbery, says he in the prophecy, but the contrary appears in the application of it to himself, on supposition that he is but a mere man like ourselves. I love judg'ment;' but how does this appear, if he assumes divine titles, and prerogatives, when in reality he is not a divine person? And I will make an everlasting covenant with them;' from whence one would, at first view, be apt to conceive him to be an Moreeverlasting Being; or how should his covenant stand? over that he had an essential personal right to make a covenant with his people.

What should we think is the design of a mere man, if we heard him ascribing to himself the titles of the supreme GOD, and, at the same time, avowing himself to be the faithful and true witness? Must we not consider him as an impostor, and his doctrine worthy to be treated with the greatest contempt ? It will be in vain to alledge in his excuse, that the divinity of his mission warranted his assumption of those appellations, seeing such warrants, and such practices resulting from them, are wholly unknown among men. The commission of a prince will authorise his ambassador, to speak in the name of his master, but will never warrant his assuming his master's name, and titles of honour. How would their high mightinesses, the States of Holland look upon Sir Joseph Yorke, were he to say to them, I am King George III. defender of the faith,' &c. Would they not conclude, that he was either a traitor, or a madman? If he speaks only in the name of his master, they may understand his address; but if he should say, I and King George are one or he that hath seen me hath seen King George, they would certainly be at a loss to guess his meaning. Even so, if Jesus had barely said, the Lord loveth judgment,' &c. the people might have known his meaning. But when he says, 'I Jehovah love judg6 ment, and hate robbery,' &c. no man can think that he means to represent himself as no more than a mere creature. So that at all events, if to worship him as God in our nature be idolatry, he himself has given occasion to our error, therefore deserves the whole blame of our destruction, if we should indeed be damned